Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
PALLAVA GRANITES INDUSTRIES INDIA (P) LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/03/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
These special leave petitions arise from the judgment
of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, made
on 11.11.1996 in Writ Appeal No. 1196/96 and Writ Petition
No. 19865/96. The petitioner had applied for grant of a
lease of land from owners thereof, respondents 4-7 on August
22, 1991 for a period of 15 years to win over black granite
over an extent of 12.08 acres of land in S.Nos. 105/1, 2, 3,
of R.I. Puram village, Chimakkurthy Manal, Prakasam district
in Andhra Pradesh. The Director granted the mining lease for
six months on August 11, 1994, pending further proceedings.
Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-owners filed Writ Petition
No. 15615/94 challenging the grant of lease without their
consent. The writ petition was disposed of on 7.10.1994 with
a direction that the lease could be granted only with
consent of the respondent-owners. However, without obtaining
their consent, lease was executed on January 5, 1995 for 15
years. Notice was issued by the respondent-landlords on
January 5, 1996 requesting the petitioner-lessee to handover
the land by July 7, 1996 after the expiry of the initial
lease. Thereafter there was exchange of the notice etc. and
the petitioner filed a writ petition and the High Court
directed the authorities to extend to period of lease in
terms of the lease granted by the Industries and Mining
Department. W.P. No. 13147/96 was disposed of with a
direction to the Industries to dispose of the application in
accordance with the Rules applicable to them within eight
weeks. The order dismissing the writ petition came to be
passed on July 10, 1996. The Director granted mining lease
again on August 28, 1996. Writ Petition No. 13147/96 was
dismissed on the ground of res judicata. Writ petition No.
19865/96 filed by the petitioner to grant mining lease
without reference to the consent of the landlords was
dismissed on 19.9.1996. Writ appeal No. 1191/96 was filed by
the petitioner against the order dated 23.8.1996 in Writ
Petition No. 13147/96. Both came to be dismissed by the
Division Bench. Thus, this special leave petition.
The primary contention raised before us by Shri Soli J.
Sorabjee, learned senior counsel, is that there was an
earlier judgment of the High Court wherein it was held that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
there was no need to obtain the consent of the landlords
before grant of mining lease and, therefore, the direction
issued by the Division Bench of the ground of the prevailing
practice is not correct in law.
We find no force in the contention. The right to
excavate the mines from the land of private owner is based o
the agreement; unless the lessor gives his consent, no
lessee has a right to enter upon his land and carry on
mining operation. The right to grant mining lease to
excavate the mines beneath the surface is subject to the
agreement of the land owners, Therefore, with a view to
ensure that there will not be any obstruction in working of
the mining lease and also for the peaceful operation to the
excavation of the mines, insistence on the consent of the
landlord is necessary. Therefore, we do into find any
illegality in the view taken by the High Court warranting
interference.
The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.