Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner herein challenges the order passed by the Director of Mines and Geology through his memo dated 19.12.2013 requiring the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nizamabad to submit proposals on the transfer of mining lease application after obtaining the consent from the legal heir and the present mining lease holder for taking further action in the matter. The petitioner also seeks a consequential direction to the 1st respondent State Government to pass appropriate orders by transferring the un-expired period of mining lease of Quartz over an extent of 3.920 hectares in Sy.No.629/2 of Nandipet village and Sy.Nos.62 and 63 of Chimarajpally village, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the recommendations made by the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4.

The State Government, the 1st respondent herein passed orders through their G.O.Ms.No.352, Industries and Commerce (M.III) Department dated 17.12.2007 granting mining lease for Quartz over an extent of 3.920 Hectares situated in Sy.No.629/2 of Nandipet Village and Sy.Nos.62 and 63 of Chimarajpally Village of Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District for a period of 20 years in favour of M/s Sri Venkateswara Minerals subject to obtaining Consent For Establishment (CFE) from the A.P.Pollution Control Board and subject to satisfaction of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (henceforth called Rules) and the Provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for brevity referred to as Act from now on). The State Government passed further orders through their Memo No.1090 dated 11.02.2009, after due consideration of the request of M/s Sri Venkateswara Minerals, granted extension of time for a further period of six months from the last expiry date for execution of lease deed. Accordingly, upon satisfactorily complying with all statutory requirements and other related formalities, a mining lease has been executed on 28.07.2009 for a period of 20 years i.e. up to 27.07.2029, according permission to commence mining operations over the leased extent of land. It appears on 28.10.2009, an application for transfer of the mining lease for the un-expired portion in favour of the writ petitioner has been filed. Sri Mohd.Abdul Hai, the sole proprietor of M/s Sri Venkateswara Minerals signed the transfer application and also filed an affidavit setting out that due to financial and age related problems he desired to transfer the mining lease in favour of the writ petitioner herein for the un- expired lease period up to 27.07.2029. That application has been processed by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nizamabad, who recommended the transfer to be accorded. The Zonal Joint Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, has also considered the matter and agreed with the recommendations of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology for transfer of the mining lease in favour of the writ petitioner herein for the un-expired portion. The Director of Mines and Geology, through his communication dated 02.06.2010 required Sri Mohd.Abdul Hai to submit the necessary declaration within 15 days by way of notarized affidavit with regard to the consideration amount received by the transferor from the transferee so as to consider the justification for the transfer proposals and also to make an assessment as to whether the transfer proposal is a speculative one or not. It is the case of the petitioner that Sri Mohd.Abdul Hai has accordingly submitted the notarized affidavit vouching for the fact that he has received an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards consideration for the transfer of the mining lease in favour of the petitioner herein as that was the amount incurred by him towards the preliminary expenditure. Thereafter the proposal for transfer has been processed once again to the Director of Mines and Geology for his consideration.

Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the sub-soil mineral Quartz does not belong to any individual. The Mineral wealth is that of the State. What has been granted by the State is only a lease to win the mineral. The mining lease holder had agreed to transfer the mining lease for the un-expired portion in favour of the petitioner and completed all the requisite formalities including execution of an affidavit vouching for the fact that he has received a just consideration, which has no element of speculation for the transfer of the mining lease. It is contended by Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, all that is required to be done for causing the transfer of the mining lease has already been done and hence the formal order of transfer has got to be passed by the State Government in accordance with Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules. Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that there was no necessity to obtain the consent of the legal heir of the deceased Mohd.Abdul Hai. Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the expression "lessee" used in the lease deed includes heirs, executors, administrators, representatives and permitted assigns and hence the transfer application filed by Sri Mohd.Abdul Hai binds his legal heirs and hence no separate consent is required to be obtained from the legal heirs. Further, the analogy of Rule 25A can be applied to the transfer applications as well. Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that as per the meaning of the term "transfer" employed under Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, the transfer of the property in question shall be deemed to have been effected and neither the intervention of the State nor the consent of the legal heir is warranted. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once a deed of transfer is executed by the transferor, no further interest of the transferor in the property would remain with the transferor to enable subsequently his legal heirs to claim succession thereto. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that a transfer in property takes effect from the date of execution of the deed of transfer, but not necessarily from the date of its registration. Therefore, Sri Mohd.Abdul Hai having already executed a deed of transfer in favour of the petitioner herein, the question of obtaining the consent of the successors of Sri Mohd.Abdul Hai would not simply arise now. Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, while dealing with the expression "transfer in relation to capital asset" found in the Income Tax Act, would submit that the Supreme Court held that relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of right therein amounts to transfer of a capital asset. Applying the said principle, Sri Mohd.Abdul Hai, the transferor had extinguished his right in favour of the writ petitioner by receiving consideration and hence the transfer of the lease deed is liable to be deemed to have been completed in the present case. In that view of the matter, the necessity to seek the consent of the legal representatives of the transferor would not simply arise. Therefore, the Director of Mines and Geology has gravely erred in directing the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nizamabad to process the application only after obtaining the consent of the legal representatives of Sri Mohd.Abdul Hai.

The following facts are not in dispute:

Pursuant to the orders passed by the State Government contained in their G.O.Ms.No.352, Industries and Commerce (M.III) Department, dated 17.12.2007, granting mining lease for Quartz over an extent of 3.920 Hectares in favour of M/s Sri Venkateswara Minerals, a mining lease was executed on 28.07.2009 to subsist till 27.07.2029. In three months time thereafter i.e. on 28.10.2009 the petitioner herein filed an application for transfer of the mining lease for the balance period of time. The transfer application was signed by Sri Mohd.Abdul Hai. Sri Mohd.Abdul Hai pursuant to the communication dated 02.06.2010 of the Director of Mines and Geology submitted a declaration in the form of a notarized affidavit vouching for receipt of Rs.50,000/- towards consideration amount for the proposed transfer from the petitioner herein. The proposal has been recommended by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology and the Zonal Joint Director of Mines and Geology, which was also considered by the Director of Mines and Geology. But however on 26.09.2010 Sri Mohd.Abdul Hai expired. On an application submitted by his wife, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nizamabad passed orders on 03.05.2012 recognising her as the successor lessee of the mining lease. That action has been unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner herein by instituting Writ Petition NO.22279 of 2012 and this Court held that as long as the lease stood in the name of the lessee, till the date of his death, the legal representative would certainly be entitled to get the succession and hence no exception need be drawn in recognising the wife of the deceased lessee as the successor of the lease. Taking the same into account and consideration, the Director of Mines and Geology, through the impugned order directed the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology to process the transfer application of the mining lease after obtaining the consent of the successor lease holder.