B.R. SURENDRANATH SINGH versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 5 S.C.R. 218 · Decided: 11-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2011) 5 S.C.R. 218 
B.R. SURENDRANATH SINGH 
v. 
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & 
GEOLOGY, KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3187-3188 of 2011) 
APRIL 11, 2011 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
. ,' \. 
Mines and minerals: 
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 
1957 - s. 21 read withs. 4(1)(a) - Illegal mining of iron ore - . 
Department detected unauthorized mining operation in 
Government land - Action taken to seize iron ore illegally 
D quarried and deposited on the leased area of appellant-
mining lease holder - Department taking a decision to 
auction the seized iron ore - Complaint by the appellant that 
instead of the illegally mined iron ore, the department was 
contemplating to sell the iron ore which was legally mined and 
E accumulated by the appellant - Writ petition by the appellant 
- Report of the Court Commissioner to the effect that the 
dump stacked near the crusher in two lots was extracted from 
the pit located in the area leased to the appellant; and that 
no illegally extracted iron ore from the pit located in the 
Government land was stacked on the leased area of the 
F appellant - Dismissal of writ petition by High Court holding 
that the appellant did not have any right over the seized iron 
ore - Review petition also dismissed - On appeal, held: 
Appellant could legally mine upto 5500 metric tons only in a 
year which was increased to 41000 metric tons a year-Audit 
G report indicates that the appellant had quarried and produced 
around one lakh ton of iron ore - Theory of somebody putting 
one lakh ton of iron ore of mining lease is totally untenable 
and beyond comprehension - One lakh ton of iron ore cannot 
be kept on any mining lease all of a sudden without the 
H 
218 
B.R. SURENDRANATH SINGH v. DY DIRECTOR, DEPTT. 219 
OF MINES & GEOLOGY. 
knowledge of the appellant - It is possible only when the 
A 
appellant had indulged in massive illegal mining - Thus, the 
appellant cannot claim any right over seized iron ore -
Interference u/Art. 136 not called for - Constitution of India, 
1950 - Article 136. 
The appellant is a mining lease holder and an area 
of 58 acres was leased in favour of the appellant. The 
·appellant is continuing with the quarrying operation and 
B 
is also filing monthly reports with respondent No. 1-
Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology. The 
appellant wrote to the respondents that adjacent to the C 
property leased in favour of the appellant, certain person 
had illegally conducted mining operations and extracted 
iron ore. The respondents found that about one lakh ton 
of iron ore had been illegally quarried and was kept in the 
appellant's land and the appellant was directed to protect D 
the said one lakh ton of iron ore. Action was taken to 
seize the unauthorized mining iron ore which was 
deposited on the leased area of the petitioner. The 
respondent No. 1 took a decision to auction the seized 
iron ore. Thereafter, the appellant made a complaint that 
E 
instead of illegally mined iron ore, respondent No. 1 was 
contemplating to sell the iron ore which was legally mined 
and acc~mulated by the appellant. The appellant filed a 
F 
·writ petitio" seeking a prayer to restrain the respondents 
from auctioning the iron ore fines stacked in Survey No. 
\ 130,<and direct the respondents to conduct an inspection 
and determine the iron ore fines, legally extracted by the 
appellant, and the iron ore fines, illegally dumped in the 
area of the appellant. The High Court directed 
respondent No. 1 not to confirm the auction, however, 
G 
respondent No. 1 invited bids for auctioning the iron ore 
legally quarried by the appellant. Thereafter, respondent 
No. 1 issued a letter in pursuance to the complaint of 
. illegal mining activity that the Joint Director had visited 
H 
220 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 
A the site and had found that in an area adjacent to the 
lease of appellant, 'BP' and contractor 'S' of 'B' Company 
were involved in the act of committing illegal quarrying. 
Respondent No. 1 then filed a criminal complaint against 
'KM' Company; 'B' Company and their contractor 'S'; and 
B the appellant alleging that they were involved in 
committing the act of illegal quarrying. Thereafter, the 
respondents filed an application before the High Court for 
appointment of a Court Commissioner to identify and 
submit a report as to whether the iron ore stacked in the 
c leased area of the appell

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