The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Government of India Act, 1919, and the statutory rules regulating the grant of mining concessions, particularly regarding the powers of the Local Government and the delegation of authority to the Board of Revenue.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore by the appellant against the Secretary of State for India in Council (the first respondent) and Yettigadda Audemma (the second respondent), for a declaration that an order of the Local Government granting a mining lease to Yettigadda Audemma is illegal and for a decree for specific performance of a contract which he alleged had been entered into between him and the Local Government for a lease of the area in suit. In 1903 the Local Government granted a mining lease of the area known as Survey No. 499 to one R.V. Kuppuswami Aiyar. The lessee subsequently transferred this lease to the appellant company. In 1904 the Local Government granted a mining lease in respect of the area known as Survey No. 500 to Kalappa Chetti, the husband of the second respondent. Kalappa Chetti is now dead and the lease of this area has vested in the second respondent. From the second respondents area a strip of land three furlongs in length and 133 feet in breadth, lying on the boundary of Survey No. 499, was excluded from, Kalappa Chettis lease. This area has been referred to as the " margin " and I will so refer to it in this judgment. The object in reserving the margin was to prevent disputes between the two lessees. On the 5th August, 1923, the appellant company applied to the Collector for a lease of the margin. A similar application was filed by the second respondent on the 4th September, 1923. The Collector considered both the petitions and by an order dated the 1st October, 1923, rejected them as he was of the opinion that it was not desirable to grant a lease of the margin to either of them. The second respondent appealed against this order to the Board of Revenue, which confirmed the Collectors order on the 8th November, 1924. The second respondent then preferred an appeal to the Local Government, which by an order dated the 31st July, 1925, granted her petition. The appellant company was dissatisfied with this decision and applied to the Local Government to reconsider it and to grant the area to the appellant company. The Local Government did consider the matter and decided to cancel the lease of the margin to the second respondent on the ground that its previous order was ultra vires and had been passed without full knowledge of the fact that the second respondent, or her predecessors in title, had undermined the margin of the land to a considerable extent and had extracted mica therefrom. The Local Government left it to the Collector to determine whether any portion of the margin should be leased and, if so, to whom.

2. On the 15th March, 1926, the second respondent filed another petition asking that a lease of the margin be granted to her, and two days later the appellant company applied. The Sub-Collector thereupon held an inquiry into the matter and found that there had in fact been encroachment by the second respondent after the Collectors order of the 1st October, 1923. He was, however, unable to ascertain the extent of the encroachment that had taken place and therefore recommended that the Collector should allot a moiety of the margin to each of the petitioners, leaving a strip of 10 feet in breadth between the two holdings. The Collector accepted this recommendation, but the parties were dissatisfied with it and further appeals were preferred to the Board of Revenue. By an order dated the 7th February, 1927, the Board of Revenue reversed the Collectors order and directed that neither party should be given any portion of the margin. The appellant company appealed against the Boards order to the Local Government, which by an order dated the 7th May, 1927, directed that the margin should be given to the. appellant company after the reservation of a strip of five links lying on the second respondents boundary. The Local Government considered that the second respondent had forfeited any claim to consideration