Challenge to powers of Board of Revenue in granting mining lease.

RAJAMANNAR, C.J. :- These two appeals arise out of two suits tried together along with another suit (which, however, has not come up in appeal) and disposed of by a common judgment by the learned District Judge of Bellary. The appellant is the plaintiff in both the suits. For a determination of the questions which arise in these appeals it is necessary to relate the events which led up to the suits. It is sufficient to commence the narration with the grant of a prospecting licence to the appellant on 28-5-1941 (Ex.A.1) which conferred on him the sole right, subject to the conditions contained in the licence, to mine, bore, dig and search for iron and work and carry away red oxide of iron within an area of 76 acres being a portion of S.No.326 of Janikunta village in Bellary district. The licence was for a term of one year commencing from 28-5-1941. The contesting respondent in the appeals, one Vishnu Nimbkar, obtained a similar prospecting licence for red oxide on 11-8-1941 (Ex.B.1) in respect of S.No.3 in the village of Thumti in the same district measuring 288 acres. This survey number was adjacent to the area in respect of which the appellant had been granted a licence. Nimbkar also obtained a regular mining lease for a term of the ten years commencing from 5-1-1942 of two other portions of S.326 comprising about 304 acres (Ex.B.26.a).

It is common ground that the appellant did not do any prospecting during the period covered by the licence in his favour. It is also clear from the evidence that Nimbkar who was represented by his agent C. Srinivasa Rao was engaged regularly in working and extracting ore in considerable quantities. On 19-2-1942 the appellant wrote to the District Collector, Bellary, complaining, that Srinivasa Rao, the agent of Nimbkar, had removed about 50 tons of red oxide from the area covered by his prospecting licence. This communication was forwarded by the Collector for inspection and report. On 23-4-1942 the appellant requested the Collector of Bellary to grant him a prospecting licence for one more year as he had not been able to do any prospecting owing to "unavoidable circumstances." The Collector granted this request and directed a renewal of the prospecting licence for a period of one year from 28-5-1942 (Ex.B.6). Apparently no fresh licence was executed, because the office took the view that a fresh licence was not necessary for a renewal, as the conditions were the same and it was sufficient for the Collector to issue proceedings to the effect that the licence had been renewed (vide Ex.B.6).

On 20-10-1942, Srinivasa Rao on behalf of Nimbkar applied for the grant of a mining lease for the same area for which the appellant had obtained a prospecting licence (Ex.B.2). The appellant raised objections as to the genuineness and validity of this application which were also pressed before us. But in our opinion there is no substance in these objections. The application was produced from proper custody and its genuineness is conclusively established by the challan (Ex.B.2.a) obtained on 21-10-1942 for the deposit of a sum of Rs.500 as the prescribed security which should accompany an application for a mining lease. Whether this application was duly stamped or not, it is difficult to be certain. But the absence of a stamp is a matter only for the consideration of the Government authorities, and the appellant cannot rely upon any defect, even assuming there was one. The appellant also presented an application for the grant of a mining lease for the same area on 6-11-1942 (Ex.B.3). But this was not accompanied by the deposit of any security. It must, however, be mentioned that the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.100 in connection with the grant of the prospecting licence to him and under the rules this deposit could be carried over to his credit in connection with the application for the mining lease. On 26-11-1942 the appellant sent in another similar application.

2. Meanwhile the appellant filed