JUDGMENT

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.:—Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant is canvassing the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court allowing Writ Appeal No. 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. 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. 20 and 21 of Kudagali village. The pink granite concerned 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.

3. The appellant applied on July 4,1980 for grant of a quarry lease in respect of pink granite in Survey Nos. 20 and 21 admeasuring 300 acres. On January 6,1981, a lease was granted to him in respect of 100 acres. At the instance of the appellant, a corrigendum 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. Before, however, a lease deed could 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. 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 conducted by him on July 3, 1981) to the competent officer. (Incidentally, the survey report states that the appellant had chosen only 50 acres out of the extent granted to him).

4. Aggrieved by the refusal to execute to lease deed the appellant says, he filed a revision before the Director of Mines and Geology on July 26, 1981. (Vide Para 4 of Writ Petition). Prior to the filing of the said revision, he says, he had also filed a representation to the same effect on July 21, 1981. (Vide Para 3 of Writ Petition). The filing of the revision and the submitting of the representation aforesaid is, however, denied and disputed by the respondents. They say that no such revision petition or representation was received by them. Be that as it may, in the year 1989, i.e., after a lapse of eight years, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 14657 of 1989 in the High Court of Karnataka for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondents to execute a lease deed pursuant to the grant of lease dated January 6, 1981 as corrected on June 6, 1981. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that inasmuch as the grant of lease in favour of the appellant was prior to the introduction of Rule 3(A), (imposing the ban), the execution of a lease deed pursuant to such grant is not barred by the said Rule. The learned Judge purported to follow the earlier decisions of the High Court in that behalf. 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) "From 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 respondent cannot make his claim on the basis of Annexure-B, viz., the corrigendum dated 6-6-1981 which in fact was issued under suspicious circumstances because there is nothing to show that prior to 6-6-1981 the respondent had requested the appellant to correct the mistake regarding the area of lease." (2) Since no lease deed was executed within three months of the grant (reference is evidently to grant dated January 6, 1981) the grant must be deemed to have ben revoked.