Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)
Unknown vs Present on 12 October, 2015 cites

Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams vs K.M. Krishnaiah on 2 March, 1998

3. A counter affidavit has been filed in both the writ petitions by the quarry operator, wherein the fact of the quarry operator having obtained the D&O licence from the respondent Panchayath is highlighted to indicate that the quarrying operations were begun after obtaining the necessary clearance from the statutory authorities. With regard to the quarrying activities that were carried on in the property prior to 18.05.2012, it is stated that the requirement of obtaining an environmental clearance certificate came in only with effect from 18.05.2012 and for the prior period, he had the necessary permissions from the statutory authorities for carrying out the quarrying activities. With regard to the specific contention pertaining to the land on which the quarrying operations was carried on, reliance is placed on Exts.R5(b), R5(c), R5(d), R5(e) and R5(f) judgments/interim orders/orders of this Court and the order of the Supreme Court to contend that very allegation that the land assigned for the purposes of rubber cultivation could not be used for quarrying of rock had been considered by this Court and also the Supreme Court in respect of the same land as is involved in the present writ petition and this Court had unequivocally permitted the quarry operator to carry on the quarrying operations in the said property. It is stated that inasmuch as this Court had already gone into the issue and decided the issue in favour of the quarry operator, the very same W.P.(C).Nos.32474 of 2015 & 22641 of 2017 -5- issue could not be agitated through a fresh writ petition albeit at the instance of another person. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case in Thirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. K.M. Krishnaiah [JT 1998 (2) SC 231] is relied upon to contend that the earlier judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court pertaining to the same land of the quarry operator would have evidentiary value in a subsequent litigation involving the same property. The judgment of this Court dated 06.11.2014 in W.P.(C) No.16054 of 2013 is also relied upon to contend that, in respect of the same property and the same quarry operator, this Court had already held that they were entitled to the quarrying permit issued by the Geologist, and that the said authorities had no right to interfere with the rights that had accrued to the quarry operator by virtue of the land assignment. The said judgment clarified that, if there was any violation of the conditions of the patta, it was for the authority who issued the patta to cancel the same, and without canceling the patta, the quarrying permits issued also could not have been be canceled. The said judgment is also relied upon to contend that, inasmuch as the quarry operator's right to conduct quarrying operations on the assigned land has already engaged the attention of this Court, and the quarry operator was permitted to carry on the operations, the issue of legality of the action of the quarry operator in carrying on such operations on assigned land W.P.(C).Nos.32474 of 2015 & 22641 of 2017 -6- cannot be gone into afresh in these proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 120 - M J Rao - Full Document

Thressiamma Jacob & Ors vs Geologist,Dptt.Of Mining & Geology ... on 8 July, 2013

4. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Thresiamma Jacob v. Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology [2013 (3) KLT 275 (SC)] is also relied upon to contend that the Supreme Court has declared that there is nothing in the law which declares that all mineral wealth and sub-soil rights vest in the State, and on the other hand, the ownership of sub-soil/mineral wealth should normally follow the ownership of the land, unless the owner of the land is deprived of the same by some valid process. The decision is relied upon essentially to contend that even in respect of assigned land, the ownership of the sub-soil is transferred to the quarry operator through the assignor, and even in the absence of any permit granted by the statutory authority, the rights in the sub-soil and minerals would accrue to the assignee of the land. It is further contended that clause (15) of the patta which deals with the reservation of rights in the Government is confined only to the reservation of a share of the rights over the land and nothing more.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 90 - Full Document
1