Karnataka High Court
Mr K M Mohammed Azeez vs State Of Karnataka on 4 January, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Suraj Govindaraj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.10777/2021 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN
MR. K.M. MOHAMMED AZEEZ
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY
HIS WIFE AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
SMT. SAKINA BANO
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 395/2
C.K. ROAD, DAIRA
CHANNAPATNA TOWN 562 160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI LAKAMAPURMATH CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (MINES)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
VIKASA SOUDHA, 1ST FLOOR
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
2
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
CHITRADURGA - 577 501
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED
IN NOT TREATING THE MINING LEASE ML NO.1198
GRANTED TO THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER IS
DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR A PERIOD OF 50
YEARS AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 8A(3) OF ACT
NO.10/2015 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, SURAJ GOVINDARAJ .J MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed seeking for the following reliefs:
"a) CALL for the records which ultimately resulted in not treating the Mining Lease ML No.1198 granted to the husband of the Petitioner is deemed to have been granted for a period of 50 years as provided under Section 8A(3) of Act No.10/2015;
b) ISSUE an order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to treat the Petitioner as Legal Representative of the deceased Lessee K.M.Mohammed Azeez and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the request of the Petitioner to 3 treat the Petitioner has Mining Lease deemed to have been granted for a period of 50 years w.e.f. 03.08.1974 -
Annexure 'A'.
c) ISSUE an order, direction or Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent to extend the period of the Lease during which period the Petitioner was not permitted to conduct the mining operation in the Schedule Property; and
d) ISSUE such other relief/s which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. It is contended in the writ petition that Sri K.M.Mohammed Azeez had been granted a mining lease for extracting and removing Green Quartz from Sy.No.26 measuring 180 acres situated at Kumminaghatta Village, Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District, as Mining Lease No.1198 was executed on 03.08.1974 for a period of 10 years. Sri K.M.Mohammed Azeez made an application on 23.04.1983 for renewal of the mining lease, the said application was rejected on 31.11.1987. Sri K.M.Mohammed Azeez approached this Court by filing W.P.No.6337/1988 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 17.01.1995 permitting Sri K.M.Mohammed Azeez to operate the lease granted to him, if there is no other impediment. Subsequent thereto, Sri K.M.Mohammed Azeez 4 expired on 08.09.2019. Being the legal representative of Sri K.M.Mohammed Azeez, his wife Smt. Sakina Bano is before this Court seeking for the reliefs as extracted above.
3. Sri L.M.Chidanandayya, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Smt. Sakina Bano being the legal representative of Sri K.M.Mohammed Azeez, who expired on 08.09.2019, is entitled for the benefit under Rule 25A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short 'the said Rules of 1960'). By relying on the said provision, he submits that an application for renewal of the mining lease would be deemed to have been made by the legal representative also and as such, the renewal ought to have been granted in favour of Smt. Sakina Bano.
4. He also relies on Section 8A(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'the said Act of 1957') and would contend that there is a deemed fiction of grant of a mining lease for a period of fifty years even though the same might have been granted prior to the coming into force of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015.
5
5. By relying on both the provisions, he submits that the lease had been extended or deemed to have been extended for a period of fifty years and as Sri K.M.Mohammed Azeez had expired, his wife Smt. Sakina Bano is entitled to be treated as the applicant in terms of Rule 25A of the said Rules of 1960. As such, it is claimed that Smt. Sakina Bano is entitled for the reliefs sought for.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the benefit of Section 8A(3) should not be made available to Smt. Sakina Bano in view of the specific embargo under Section 8A(9) of the said Act of 1957 wherein, it is clearly stated that the mining lease for which renewal has been rejected or which has been determined or lapsed, the benefit of Section 8A(3) would not be applicable. In this regard, he submits that in the instant case, the lease has lapsed on the expiry of 10 years from the date of the grant i.e., 03.08.1974. The lease having lapsed, there cannot be any extension or deemed extension under Section 8A(3) of the said Act of 1957. 6
7. Heard Sri L.M.Chidanandayya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S.Mahendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
8. The short question that would arise for our consideration is whether Smt. Sakina Bano can claim benefit under Section 8A(3) of the said Act of 1957 and consequently, under Rule 25A of the said Rules of 1960, can seek for grant of lease in her favour. Section 8A(3) and 8A(9) are extracted hereunder for easy reference:-
"8A(3) All mining leases granted before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, shall be deemed to have been granted for a period of fifty years.
8A(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, for which renewal has been rejected, or which has been determined, or lapsed."
9. In the present case, admittedly, the mining lease was granted and the lease deed was executed on 03.08.1974 which expired or lapsed on 03.08.1984. Though an application 7 for renewal has been filed on 23.04.1983, the order of rejection has been passed on 31.11.1987 which came to be set aside by this Court on 17.01.1995 in W.P.No.6337/1988. Thus, the order of determination is not in existence as on today. Be that as it may, there is also no order of renewal of the lease which has been granted by the authorities concerned and the lease per se lapsed on 03.08.1984. Sri K.M.Mohammed Azeez expired on 08.09.2019. Until his expiry, he had not taken any action for renewal either by making any representation to the authorities concerned. Thus, Sri K.M.Mohammed Azeez who had the benefit of the order in W.P.No.6337/1988 had not availed of the same nor had taken any action thereon. It is only after the expiry of Sri K.M.Mohammed Azeez, Smt. Sakina Bano has filed this writ petition claiming to be his legal representative and sought for entitlement under Section 8A(3) of the said Act of 1957 by virtue of Rule 25A of the said Rules of 1960.
10. In our considered opinion, since no action had been taken from 1995 till the expiry of Sri K.M.Mohammed Azeez on 08.09.2019, after lapse of 26 years, Smt. Sakina Bano, the legal representative of Sri K.M.Mohammed Azeez, 8 cannot now seek the benefit under Rule 25A of the said Rules of 1960 as also under Section 8A(3) of the said Act of 1957. The delay of 26 years cannot be regarded as reasonable by any stretch of imagination. In view thereof, both on merits as also in terms of the delay which has been caused, we are of the considered opinion that there is no case made out for grant of the reliefs sought for.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE bkv