1. Dispute over execution of a quarry lease for minor minerals under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969, following a ban on private grants. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 613
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.
S. A. Rasheed, Appellant
Versus
Director of Mines and Geology and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 5278 of 1995 (arising of S.L.P. (C) No. 841 of 1992), D/-28-4-1995.
Advocates:
D.L.N.RAO, KAPIL SIBAL, M.VIRAPPA, S.K.KULAKARNI
D.L.N.RAO, KAPIL SIBAL, M.VIRAPPA, S.K.KULAKARNI
The Supreme Court held that a writ petition seeking the execution of a lease deed is barred by laches if there is an unexplained and undue delay in approaching the court, particularly when the lease period would have nearly expired by the time of filing.
Headnote:
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 - Section 15 - Deputy Director of Mines and Geology - Claim by appellant - Appellant applied grant of a quarry lease in respect of pink granite in Survey a lease was granted to him in respect acres- At instance of appellant a corrigendum was issued stating that area in respect of which appellant has been granted lease shall be read as acres- Before however a lease deed could be executed of appellant as required was introduced in said Rules prohibiting grant of mining lease in respect of granite to private persons with effect In view of said Rule appellant says respondents declined to execute a lease deed in his pursuant grant aforesaid even though Senior Geologist submitted his survey report on basis of survey conducted by competent officer- Incidentally survey report states that appellant had chosen only out of extent granted -Held, Director of Mines and Geology along with an affidavit- In affidavit appellant stated Court submit respectfully that revision petition was filed by me and acknowledgement was also taken on copy - However a few years back while I was travelling from Bangalore to Mysore Court lost my suit-case in which all originals of all documents were kept- Therefore I am not having originals with me- A set of photocopies were available from which I made further copies-" photocopy of receipt which has been produced before us is blurred in many places entries are Kannada while entries made by appellant are in English petition and averments now made may immediately be noticed of writ petition appellant had stated - petitioner was constrained to file a revision petition to Director of Mines and Geology requesting for a direction to competent officer to execute lease deed- A true copy of revision petition is produced and marked as Annexure-D- petitioner has also made a representation to Director of Mines and Geology A true copy of representation is produced and marked as Annexure- As against said averment present case of appellant as put forward in his affidavit dated appellant had not received any refusal in writing from respondents nor had a period of three months elapsed - In view of above circumstances and denial of respondents to have received any such revision petition court find it difficult to accept appellants story- Now even court proceed on assumption that appellant had indeed filed such a revision petition case it still does not explain his spreading over a period of eight years- There is not a shred of paper to show that appellant had ever reminded Director of his revision petition or asked for its disposal- There is also not a scrap of paper to establish that respondents had ever asked him to wait - It is understandable why was he asked to wait even after decision of this Court on ground that some other similar writ petitions were pending - Appeal dismissed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the grant remained valid despite a subsequent ban and whether the failure to execute the lease deed within the statutory period resulted in revocation. (Para 5 )
3. The court found the appellant's explanation for the eight-year delay vague and unsupported by evidence, while emphasizing the mandatory nature of the lease execution timeline. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. The statutory requirement to execute a lease deed within a prescribed period is mandatory, and unexplained delay in seeking judicial remedy constitutes fatal laches. (Para 7 , 12 , 13 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 14 )
6. What is the legal effect of failing to execute a formal lease deed within the period prescribed under Rule 9(2) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969?
If a formal lease deed is not executed within three months of the sanctioning order, or within any further period allowed by the competent officer, the order sanctioning the lease is deemed to have been revoked. (Para 7 )
7. How does the court evaluate claims of laches when a party approaches the court after a significant delay?
The court examines whether the delay is explained by credible evidence. Vague averments without supporting documentation, such as missing receipts or unproven assurances from authorities, are insufficient to excuse laches. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
8. Is the intended duration of a lease relevant when determining whether to grant a writ of mandamus for its execution after a long delay?
Yes, if the lease period contemplated by the grant would have nearly expired by the time the writ petition is filed, the court may consider this as a reason why issuing the writ is not just and proper. (Para 13 )
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.
