Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 1413

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CHIEF JUSTICE AND C.M. POONACHA
M/S SHRI VENKATESHWARA MINERALS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 23583/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D.L.N. Rao, Anirudh Anand
For the Respondents: Kiran V. Ron, Niloufer Akbar

A mining lease granted in violation of the minimum area requirement under Rule 22-D of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 is void under Section 19 of the MMDR Act and cannot be deemed extended under Section 8A(3).

Headnote:(A) Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 8A(3) and 19 - Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Rule 22-D - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Deemed extension of mining lease - Minimum area requirement - Lease granted for area less than prescribed minimum (4 hectares) after insertion of Rule 22-D - Application for deemed extension under Section 8A(3) rejected - Validity of lease - Section 19 declares lease void if granted in contravention of rules - Proviso to Rule 22-D exempts only renewals, not original grants - Principle of negative equality under Article 14 cannot be invoked to claim benefit of illegal action. (Paras 14-27)

(B) Void lease - Effect - Once lease is void, no right can flow from it - Deemed extension cannot be claimed. (Paras 22-24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a transferee of a mining lease originally granted in 2006 for limestone and dolomite over 6 acres (2.43 hectares), applied for deemed extension of the lease for 50 years under Section 8A(3) of the MMDR Act. The application was rejected on the ground that the lease area was less than the minimum of 4 hectares required under Rule 22-D(c) of the MCR, 1960, which was in force at the time of grant. The original lessee had applied for a larger area but was granted only 6 acres without objection.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the mining lease was granted after the insertion of Rule 22-D (10.04.2003) and the proviso exempting minimum area applies only to renewals, not to original grants. Therefore, the grant was in violation of Rule 22-D, making the lease void under Section 19 of the MMDR Act. Consequently, no deemed extension under Section 8A(3) can be claimed. The court also rejected the argument based on negative equality, noting that Article 14 does not permit perpetuation of illegality. (Paras 14-31)

Issues: (i) Whether the mining lease granted in 2006 for an area of less than 4 hectares is valid in light of Rule 22-D of the MCR, 1960? (ii) Whether the proviso to Rule 22-D exempts the lease from the minimum area requirement? (iii) Whether the petitioner can claim deemed extension under Section 8A(3) of the MMDR Act despite the lease being void?

Ratio Decidendi: A mining lease granted after the insertion of Rule 22-D of the MCR, 1960, for an area less than the prescribed minimum of 4 hectares (for minerals other than those specified in clauses (a) and (b)) is void under Section 19 of the MMDR Act and cannot be deemed extended under Section 8A(3). The proviso to Rule 22-D applies only to renewals, not to original grants. The principle of negative equality under Article 14 does not entitle a party to claim the benefit of an illegal grant.

Result: Petition dismissed.

2. THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

DEPARTEMTN OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD

BENGALURU 560 001

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI KIRAN V. RON, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/02/2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN SL.NO.CI 107 CMC 2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-J & ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia impugning an order dated 04.02.2023 [impugned order] passed by respondent No.1 whereby the petitioner's application under Section 8A(3) of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 [MMDR Act], was rejected.

2. The petitioner had claimed deemed extension of the existing mining lease over a land measuring six acres falling in Survey No.63/1 of Thimmapura Village, Mudhol Taluk, Bagalkot District. The petitioner's application for a deemed extension of the lease was rejected on the ground that the area of six acres of land was less than the threshold area required for a special lease under Section 22(D)(c) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 [MCR, 1960].

The context

3. It is stated that one Sri Ninganagouda Appanagouda Patil was an agriculturist who owned agricultural land to the extent of about 20 acres falling in Survey No.63/1 of Thimmapura Village, Mudhol Taluk, Bagalkot District. He had filed an application for mining limestone lease to the extent of 15.20 acres of the subject land on 23.08.2002. The said application was recommended by the Deputy Director, Department of Mines & Geology, by letter dated 08.04.2024. However, the recommendation was for a mining lease confined to an area of 6 acres falling in Sy.No.63/1 [subject land].

4. Thereafter, the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, accorded its approval for grant of mining lease of limestone in respect of the subject land (land of 6 acres falling in Survey No.63/1 of Thimmapura Village). The recommendation of the lease was for a term of 20 years. The subject land was surveyed and a demarcation report furnished by the Junior Engineer was submitted on 13.12.2005 along with the sketch of the subject land.

5. Respondent No.2 granted mining lease in favour of the applicant (Sri Ningangouda Appanagouda Patil) for an extent of 6 acres of land vide Mining Lease No.2508 dated 25.01.2006, which was registered. The term of the mining lease was 20 years.

6. During the term of the mining lease, the licencee (Sri Ningangouda Appanagouda Patil), made an application dated 28.07.2007 requesting that 'dolomite mineral' be included in the existing mining lease (Mining Lease No.2508). The said application was recommended by the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology on 04.02.2008. Thereafter, the Director, Department of Mines and Geology issued a notification dated 15.06.2011 approving inclusion of 'dolomite mineral' in the existing mining lease (Mining Lease No.2508) for a period co-terminus with

the original lease, which would expire on 24.01.2026. The inclusion deed including 'dolomite mineral' as a part of the mining lease (ML No.2663) was executed on 21.07.2011. The same came to be registered on 02.08.2011 at the Mudhol Sub-Registrar Office.

7. It is stated that one of the conditions of the grant of mining lease was that land would be converted to non-agricultural. Accordingly, the lessee (Sri Ningangouda Appanagouda Patil) made an application seeking conversion of the subject land to non-agricultural land – for the purpose of industrial (mining) – to the District Collector, Bagalkot. He also paid the conversion fee along with compounding fine aggregating to ` 4,44,418/-.

8. Sri Ningangouda Appanago

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 1413

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKACHIEF JUSTICE AND C.M. POONACHAM/S SHRI VENKATESHWARA MINERALS – AppellantVersusSTATE OF KARNATAKA – RespondentWP 23583/2024

A mining lease granted in violation of the minimum area requirement under Rule 22-D of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 is void under Section 19 of the MMDR Act and cannot be deemed extended under Section 8A(3).

Cases Referred (3)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CHIEF JUSTICE AND C.M. POONACHA
M/S SHRI VENKATESHWARA MINERALS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 23583/2024