Instructions appear to have been issued to the manager of the Venkatagiri estate requiring him to take over possession of the slate quarries which were then being worked by the appellant immediately after the expiry of two months numberice issued to him.
The Board of Revenue submitted a report to the Government on October 20, 1955, and the Government after companysidering the Boards report instructed the latter to dispose of the case on merits.
In the meantime on September 21, 1955, the appellant had applied to the Board of Revenue, Andhra for renewal of the lease under r. 47 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949.
The Rajah on the same day granted a lease for twenty years to the appellant.
The appellant promptly filed a writ petition, No.
All these writ petitions were heard together and were disposed of by a companymon judgment against which these appeals have been filed.
He filed another petition, being writ petition No.
That application was dismissed on May 23, 1957.
The Board of Revenue caused an enquiry to made by the Director of Settlements who, after taking evidence, oral and documentary, made his report to the Board of Revenue.
287 of 1952 in the Madras High Court praying for the issue of a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the Madras State to forbear from terminating the leasehold right of the petitioner in the slate quarries and from interfering with his possession and working of the slate quarries and other ancillary reliefs.
The writ petition having companye up for hearing before Umamaheswaram, J., the learned Judge on July 18, 1955, made an order directing the Government to hold, an enquiry under s. 20 of the Abolition Act and decide whether the lease had been granted prior or subsequent to July 1, 1945.
The appellant promptly filed writ petition No.
1 of 1956, 19 and 470 of 1957.
On that finding the Board of Revenue declined to ratify the lease and terminated it under the powers delegated to it under the Rules framed under the Abolition Act.
The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition No.
On the same date the appellant applied to the Collector for companyfirmation of the lease granted by the Rajah to him.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated November 20, 1957, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Writ Petitions Nos.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos 188 to 190 of 1958.
On the expiry of the fifth year, however, the Rajah granted another lease to the said Balumuri Nageswara Rao for a short period companymencing from February 1, 1947, and ending on November 30, 1947.
The order required the Government to hold the enquiry and pass the appropriate orders within three months from the date of that order.
1 of 1956, No.
Nothing appears to have happened until February 12, 1952, when a numberice was issued from the office of the Board of Revenue Andhra calling upon the appellant to show cause within two months from the date of receipt of.
On September 7, 1949 the Venkatagiri estate was numberified under s. 3 of the Madras Estate Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act 1948 Madras Act XXVI of 1948 , hereinafter referred to as the abolition Act.
Thereupon the Board of Revenue passed an order on December 27, 1955, declaring that the lease to the appellant had been granted subsequent to July 1, 1945, and that, as the lease was for a period exceeding one year, it was number enforceable against the Government, according to the second proviso to s. 20 1 of the Abolition Act.
476 of 1957 for quashing the last mentioned order passed by the Board of Revenue or, in the alternative, for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State of Andhra Pradesh to issue a fresh lease in accordance with r. 47 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949.
19 of 1957, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order made by the Board of Revenue on December 27, 1955.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAs C. J. These three appeals are directed against the judgment and order pronounced by a Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on November 20, 1957, whereby three writ petitions, namely, No.
that numberice as to why the lease should number be terminated without any companypensation under the second proviso to s. 20 1 of the Abolition Act.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, V. Vedantachari and K. Sundararajan, for the appellant.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, D. Venkatappiah Sastri and T. M. Sen for respondent No.
August 14.
It was further stipulated that if the leases were given companytinuously for five years, then the lessee would be entitled at the end of the fifth year to obtain a lease from the Rajah for a period of 20 years companymencing from the termination of the fifth year.
19 of 1957 and No.
The appellant showed cause which apparently did number satisfy the said authorities.
R. Choudhuri, for respondent No.
It is alleged that on January 10, 1942, an agreement was entered into between the Rajah of Venkatagiri and one Sri Balumuri Nageswara Rao whereby the Rajah agreed to give annual leases in respect of certain slate quarries within his estate for five years in succession companymencing from February 1942 if the Rajah was satisfied with the work carried on by the lessee during the preceding year.
1 of 1956 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State of Andhra Pradesh to forbear from terminating his leasehold right in the slate quarries.
The circumstances under which the three writ petitions came to be filed by the appellant may number be narrated.
470 of 1957, which had been filed by the appellant and were heard together, were dismissed with companyts.
These appeals have been filed with certificates granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh .
On December 10, 1947 the said Balumuri Negeswara Rao is said to have assigned his right, title and interest under the said agreement dated January 10, 1942, to the appelent of the sons of the Rajah.
The Board of Revenue also directed the Collector to take possession of the slate quarries from the appellant.
