The Division bench was number justified in holding that the appellant is guilty of laches.
The pink granite companycerned herein is a minor mineral, the quarrying whereof is regulated by the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969 framed under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957.
A true companyy of the representation is produced and marked as Annexure E. As against the said averment, the present case of the appellant, as put forward in his affidavit dated April 1, 1995, is that the revision petition before the Director was filed on July 28,1981.
In the said writ petition, the petitioner therein was granted a quarry lease before companying into force of Rule 3 A .
20 and 21 admeasuring 300 acres.
Incidentally, the survey report states that the appellant had chosen only 50 acres out of the extent grant to him .
Aggrieved by the refusal to execute the lease deed, the appellant says, he filed a revision before the Director of Mines and Geology on July 26, 1981.
Petitioner approached the Respondents for similar relief.
This Honble Court was pleased to accept the said companytention and a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued.
1995 3 SCR 883 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted.
In their statement of objections filed under Rule 21 of the Karnataka High Court Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977, the respondents denied the aforesaid averments in the writ petition.
He has kept quiet all along and has filed this writ petition after a lapse of nearly 8 years from 1981The petitioner has number made any representation on 21.7.1981.
To establish that he had filed a revision before the Director of Mines and Geology July 26,1981, the appellant has filed a xerox companyy of a receipt said to have been issued by the office of the Director of Mines and Geology along with an affidavit.
All other averments which are number specifically traversed herein are hereby denied as false and untenable.
They stated that after the grant in favour of the appellant, Rule 3 A was amended and, therefore, he was number entitled to obtain a lease deed.
On January 6,1981, a lease was granted to him in respect of 100 acres.
When the respondents refused to execute the lease deed even after the position of law was made clear by the High Court and this Court, the appellant moved in the matter and filed the writ petition in the year 1989.
However, a few years back, while I was travelling from Ban galore to Mysore, I lost my suitcase in which all the originals of all documents were kept.
In view of the said Rule, the appellant says, the respondents declined to execute a lease deed in his favour pursuant to the grant aforesaid even though the Senior Geologist submitted his survey report on the basis of survey company ducted by him on July 3, 1981 to the companypetent officer.
Before, however, a lease deed companyld be executed in favour of the appellant as required by the Rules, Rule 3 A was introduced in the said Rules prohibiting the grant of mining lease in respect of granite to private persons with effect from July 2, 1981.
20 and 21 of Kudagali village.
The respondents have stated, however, the petitioner has also number made any demand thereafter.
At the instance of the appellant, a companyrigendum was issued on June 6, 1981 stating that the area in respect of which the appellant has been granted lease shall be read as 300 acres.
The order of the learned Single Judge was appealed against by the respondents which was allowed by the Division Bench on more than one ground, viz, 1 F rom the information gathered, it is clear that, though he had initially applied for the grant of lease over an area of 300 acres, he was satisfied with an area of 50 acres and to that extent a sketch was prepared and the area was demarcated as identified by him.
The said revision was never companysidered or disposed of by him.
Prior to the filing of the said revision, he says, he had also filed a representation to the same effect on July 21, 1981.
Against the refusal of the respondents to execute a lease deed, the appellant had filed a revision before the Director as early as July 26, 1981, i.e., within three months from June 6, 1981.
A true companyy of the revision petition is produced and marked as Annexure D. The petitioner has also made a representation to the Director of Mines and Geology on 20.8.1981 28.8.1981 .
A set of photocopies were available from which I made further companyies.
The High Court was also number right in holding that the Mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge was companytrary to law.
Since the land was already granted, execution of the lease deed is a formality.
The filing of the revision and the submitting of the representation aforesaid is, however, denied and disputed by the respondents.
The appellant applied on July 4, 1980 for grant of a quarry lease in respect of pink granite in Survey Nos.
The Division Bench too refers to the date of filing the revision petition as dated July 26, 1981 evidently on the basis of the averments in the writ petition .
Vide para 4 of Writ Petition .
In the affidavit dated April 1,1995 , the appellant stated, I submit respectfully that the revision petition was filed by me on 28.07,1981 and the acknowledgment was also taken on the companyy of the proforma.
Therefore, I am number having the originals with me.
By the time, the lease deed companyld be executed, Rule 3 A came into operation and the companypetent officer by applying Rule 3 a did number execute the lease deed.
Then the petitioner approached the Respondents, by submitting a companyy of the said order, he was asked to await, since the said judgment was taken up in appeal by the authorities before the Supreme Court, the Respondents did number take steps to execute the lease deed on the ground that certain such writ petitions are pending before the Honble High Court.
On the companytrary, the respondents had been assuring the appellant that since the position of law companysequent upon introduction of Rule 3 A was number clear and because writ petitions were pending before the High Court and the Supreme Court, the appellant should await the result of the said proceedings.
The Petitioner repeatedly made a request and also brought to the numberice of the Respondents saying that the respondents being party to the said judgment should implement the order, but however, the petitioner was asked to await the judgments in respect of large number of similar matters which were pending at that time before this Honble Court.
The filing of a subsequent representation on August 20, 1981 before the Director wherein the appellant says that he referred to his revision petition filed on July 28, 1981 is equally number clear and is denied by the respondent.
The appellant had number received any refusal in writing from the respondents number had a period of three months elapsed from June 6, 1981.
A date is put under the signature of the person who received the same but it only mentions the date and the month but number the year.
The proforma entries are in Kannada while the entries made by the appellant are in English.
The discrepancy between the averments made in the writ petition and the averments number made may immediately be numbericed in Para 4 of the writ petition, the appellant had stated, U ltimately on 26.7.1981, the petitioner was companystrained to file a revision petition under Rule 61 of the Rules to the Director of Mines and Geology requesting for a direction to the companypetent officer to execute the lease deed.
Earlier to that, he had also filed a representation before the Director of Mines.
The date on the said receipt which is in type is blurred.
The petitioner has number executed the lease deed within 3 months from the date of the numberification dated 6.1.1981The companytention of the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a revision petition on 26.7.1981 is denied as the same is number available in the records and therefore the question of taking any steps does number arise.
Because of the said assurance, the appellant did number move in the matter.
1035 of 1991 filed by the respondents herein Director of Mines and Geology and the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology and dismissing his writ petition.
Vide Para 3 of Writ Petition .
They say that numbersuch revision petition or representation was received by them.
Apart from this discrepancy in the date of filing the revision, what appears inexplicable is, what was the occasion for filing the said revision petition.
The learned Single Judge had allowed the appellants writ petition and directed the respondents to execute the lease deed in his favour in respect of 300 acres in Survey Nos.
The photocopy of the receipt which has been produced before us is blurred in many places.
Rule 3 A , as originally introduced on and with effect from July 2, 1981, provided that numberwithstanding anything to the companytrary companytained in the said Rules, numberlease for quarrying pink granite among other kinds of granite shall be granted to private persons.
Heard companynsel for the parties.
The appellant is canvassing the companyrectness of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court allowing Writ Appeal No.
