ASHOK KUMAR LINGALA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 14 S.C.R. 800 · Decided: 18-10-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: CYRIAC JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 800 
ASHOK KUMAR LINGALA 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8819 of 2011) 
OCTOBER 18, 2011 
[CYRAIC JOSEPH AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
Mines and minerals - Mining lease - Overlapping of the 
area covered by the two leases - Appellant granted mining 
C lease in respect of a private land whereas respondent no. 3 
granted mining lease in respect of government and forest land 
alone - Writ petition by the appellant seeking direction to the 
respondent to refrain from interfering with the mining activities 
of the appellant which the lease deed authorised him to carry 
D out and writ petition by respondent No.3 challenging the very 
grant of the mining lease in favour of the appellant - High 
Court holding that area forming subject matter of the mining 
leases granted to the appellant on one hand and respondent 
on the other to be determined by the civil court in the suit 
E pending before it on basis of the evidence led by the parties 
- On appeal, held: When large areas are granted for mining 
purposes, some confusion as to the boundaries of such areas 
especially if they are adjacent to each other is nothing 
abnormal - In such cases a fresh demarcation is to be 
F conducted and boundaries is to be fixed so that the parties 
holding such areas stay within the limits of their respective 
areas instead of straying into the adjacent area - Order of 
restraining mining operation was meant to be a temporary and 
interim arrangement meant to remain in force only till such 
G time the Director (Mines) examined the issue regarding the 
alleged overlapping of the area and passed a final order on 
the subject - Ownership of the areas claimed by both the 
lessees vests in different owners - So long as the areas leased · 
to them are identifiable on spot by different suNey numbers 
H 
800 
ASHOK KUMAR LINGALA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 801 
& ORS. 
and boundaries, there is no question of any overlapping -
A 
Thus, proper identification and demarcation of the areas to 
be carried out and directions issued for the same. 
Certain land dedicated to a temple, was given to 'P' 
for services rendered to the temple. After the enactment 
B 
of Karnataka (Sandur Area) l~am Abolition Act, 1976, 'P' 
was granted occupancy rights in respect of the said land 
(private patta land) and his name was entered in the 
record of rights. Thereafter, wife of 'P' allowed the 
appellant to obtain a mining lease over the said land. The c 
Authorities found the property to be private patta land 
and gave no objection for the grant. The Central 
Government approved for the grant of land. The State 
Government issued notification sanctioning a mining 
lease over the said area and the lease deed was 
0 
executed. 
Respondent No. 3-'S' held a lease in respect of 
Government and forest land situate in 'S' Area. It is the 
appellant's case that when he started the mining activity, 
the Director of Mines and Geology restrained the 
E 
appellant from conducting mining activities on the 
ground that the area for which the lease was granted to 
the appellant overlapped the area granted to 'S'. 
Aggrieved, the appellant filed an application to the 
Director of Mines and Geology as also to the State 
F 
Government. He submitted that even when 3rd though 
respondent No. 3 had filed a suit for an injunction but no 
injunction was issued by the court, yet the Director of 
Mines issued an injunction. The appellant filed a writ 
petition challenging the said order/communication and 
G 
prayed for a direction to the respondent to refrain from 
interfering with the mining activities of the appellant. 
Respondent No.3 filed a writ petition challenging the grant 
of the mining lease in favour of the appellant. The High 
Court disposed of the writ petitions holding that the 
H 
802 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011} 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A identity of the area forming subject matter of mining 
leases granted to the appellant and to the respondent 
would be decided by the Civil Court on the basis of 
evidence adduced before it; and that if there is an 
overlapping of the area covered by two leases, the lessee 
B who claims under the lease granted earlier in point of time 
would have a superior right to carry out the mining 
activities in preference to the one granted earlier. 
Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeals. 
c 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The grant of occupancy rights in favour 
of 'P' by the Statutory Tribunal was

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.