K. Niranjan v. State Of Karnataka, ..., Karnataka High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P. No. 16009 of 2017 (GM-MM-S)

Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)

Mrs. Kusuma R. Prasad, Adv., for Mr. L.M. Chidanandayya, Adv.
Mr. S.S. Mahendra, AGA for R1 & R2

Judges

Alok Aradhe
A.C.J.
S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.

Acts

Section 8A(9) of MMDR Act, 1957
Section 8A(6) of MMDR Act, 1957."
6 Section 8A(9) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred
Section 8A(3) & (6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015.
Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (10 of 2015),
03.02.1996. Section 8A(9)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, Sri K. Niranjan, was granted a mining lease on 03.02.1976 for an area of 39 acres in Ramanadurga Range of Sandur Taluk, Bellary District, for a period of 20 years, which expired on 03.02.1996. The petitioner did not apply for renewal within the prescribed time. Subsequently, the State Government issued a notification on 15.03.2003 inviting fresh applications for mining leases, including the area previously leased to the petitioner. The petitioner applied afresh on 16.04.2003, but the application was rejected, with the rejection upheld by the revisional authority on 08.03.2011. The petitioner challenged the rejection in W.P. No. 14779/2011, which was disposed of on 05.07.2016 directing the State Government to reconsider applications under the 2003 notification in accordance with Supreme Court directions and amended MMDR Act provisions. Following this, the petitioner's application was reconsidered and rejected again by order dated 21.02.2017, which is the subject of the present writ petition.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a deemed extension of the mining lease for 50 years from 18.02.1976 under Section 8A(3) and (6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015.
Whether the impugned order dated 21.02.2017 rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of mining lease is liable to be quashed.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner contended that the application for grant of mining lease was not considered properly and was rejected on the ground that it does not survive.
The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order dated 21.02.2017 and requested a direction to the State Government for fresh consideration of the application.
The petitioner claimed entitlement to a deemed extension of the mining lease for 50 years from 18.02.1976 as per the 2015 Amendment to the MMDR Act.

Respondents' Arguments

The respondents supported the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application.
They argued that since the petitioner did not apply for renewal within the prescribed time, the lease had lapsed and no deemed extension is permissible.
The respondents relied on Section 8A(9) of the MMDR Act, which excludes leases granted before the 2015 Amendment for which renewal has been rejected, determined, or lapsed, from deemed extension.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the facts that the original mining lease was granted in 1976 for 20 years and expired in 1996 without renewal application by the petitioner. The court referred to Section 8A(9) of the MMDR Act, which explicitly excludes mining leases granted before the commencement of the 2015 Amendment Act from deemed extension if renewal has been rejected, determined, or lapsed. Since the petitioner’s lease renewal had lapsed due to non-application, the court found that the petitioner was not entitled to the deemed extension of 50 years. The court also noted that the rejection of the petitioner’s application for grant of mining lease was valid and that the direction from the earlier 2016 order was not contravened because the petitioner’s case did not survive under the statutory provisions. Consequently, the writ petition lacked merit and was dismissed.

Holding and Implications

The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the deemed extension of the mining lease under the 2015 Amendment due to the lapse of renewal and statutory exclusion under Section 8A(9) of the MMDR Act.

The direct effect of this decision is the upholding of the rejection of the petitioner’s application for mining lease renewal. No new precedent was established, and the ruling reinforces the statutory bar on deemed extensions for leases that have lapsed or been rejected prior to the 2015 Amendment.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

K. Niranjan v. State Of Karnataka, Rep. By Secretary Department Of Commerce And Industries And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^THDAY OF AUGUST 2022

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY W.P. NO.16009 OF 2017 (GM-MM-S)

BETWEEN:

SRI. K. NIRANJAN

S/O LATE K. BHASKAR NAIDU

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

RESIDING AT DOOR NO.49

JAGANNATH TEMPLE STREET

RADIO PARK, COWL BAZAAR

BELLARY-583 101.

... PETITIONER

(BY MRS. KUSUMA R. PRASAD, ADV., FOR

MR. L.M. CHIDANANDAYYA, ADV.,)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

AND INDUSTRIES, (MSME & MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

2. DIRECTOR

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

KHANIJA BHAVAN

RACE COURSE ROAD,BANGALORE-560 001.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 & R2) - - -

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE

RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTING IN PASSING THE

ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A DTD21.2.2017 ANNEXURE-B

DTD:15.4.2011 PASSED BY THE R-1. QUASH THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A DTD:21.2.2017 ANNEXURE-B DTD:15.4.2011 PASSED BY THE R-1. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO

TREAT THE PERIOD OF MINING LEASE OF THE PETITIONER

ML 1307 FOR A PERIOD OF 50 YEARS w.e.f., FROM 18.2.1976

AS MANDATED UNDER SECTION 8A(3)(6) OF MMDR ACT

AMENDMENT 2015. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE

ALL STATUTORY PERMISSIONS REQUIRED FOR

CONDUCTING MINING OPERATION IN THE SCHEDULE

PROPERTY & ETC.

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS

DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the mining lease of the petitioner for a period of 50 years with effect from 18.02.1976 as provided under Section 8A(3) & (6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. The petitioner also

seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated

21.02.2017.

2. Facts leading to filing of this petition briefly stated are that a mining lease was executed on 03.02.1976 in favour of the petitioner in respect of an area measuring 39 acres in Ramanadurga Range of Sandur Taluk of Bellary District for a period of 20 years. The period of mining lease expired on 03.02.1996. However, the petitioner did not file any application seeking renewal of the aforesaid lease.

3. The State Government issued a notification on 15.03.2003 inviting applications for grant of mining lease for iron ore and other minerals. The area which was previously allotted to the petitioner was also notified in the said notification. The petitioner thereupon submitted a fresh application for grant of mining lease on 16.04.2003. The aforesaid application

was rejected and the order rejecting the application for grant of mining lease was affirmed by the revisional authority by an order dated 08.03.2011. The said orders were challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition viz., W.P.No.14779/2011, which was disposed of by a bench of this court by an order dated 05.07.2016 with the following directions:

"17. We, therefore, dispose of these writ petitions by directing the State Government to consider the applications of all the applicants applied under 2003 notification following the directions of the Supreme Court of India in Sandur Manganese case (supra) and in terms of the amended provisions of the MMDR Act."

4. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of mining lease was considered and has been rejected by

an order dated 21.02.2017. The said order is under challenge in this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of mining lease has not been considered and has been rejected on the ground that the same does not survive. It is therefore, contended that the impugned order dated 21.02.2017 be set aside and the matter be remitted to the State Government for a fresh consideration.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has supported the order passed by the State Government. It is further submitted that since, the petitioner had not submitted the application for renewal of the lease, the petitioner is not entitled to deemed extension of the lease. It is also urged that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of lease in view of

Section 8A(9) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'MMDR Act' for short).

7. We have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In the instant case, the mining lease for extraction of iron ore was granted in favour of the petitioner on 03.02.1976 for a period of 20 years. The aforesaid lease expired on 03.02.1996. Section 8A(9) of the MMDR Act reads as under:

"8 [8A. Period of grant of a mining lease for minerals other than coal, lignite and atomic minerals."

(1) xxxx

(2) xxxxx

(9) The provisions of this section, notwithstanding anything contained therein, shall not apply to a mining lease granted before the date of commencement of the Mines

and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (10 of 2015), for which renewal has been rejected, or which has been determined, or lapsed.]"

8. In the instant case, the renewal of the lease had lapsed as the petitioner had not made an application for renewal within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the writ of mandamus for a direction that the period of mining lease be treated as 50 years with effect from 18.02.1976 cannot be granted.

9. The application submitted by the petitioner for grant of renewal has been rejected for the following reasons:

"The renewal application of Sri.K.Niranjan is not surviving. Therefore, as per Section 8A(9) of MMDR Act, 1957 deemed extension of mining lease is prohibited for which renewal has been rejected or which has been determined or lapsed. The instant

case is a rejected one. Hence, it is not eligible for deemed extension as per Section 8A(6) of MMDR Act, 1957."

10. Therefore, the contention that the direction issued by a division bench of this court in order dated 05.07.2016 has not been complied with is misconceived. The same therefore, does not deserve acceptance. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition, the same fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-