IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION M/S SHIVAGIRI ASSOCIATES Appellant(s)

VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. The present appeals are against the judgment and order dated 23.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition Nos. 9146-9162 of 2009 (GM-MM/S) quashing certain quarrying leases granted to the appellant.

2. After hearing Mr. Prateek Chadha, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Karnataka, the Court was of the opinion that information with respect to such factual as well as legal position is necessary for adjudication and passed the following order on 26.02.2026:

"2. Mr. Prateek Chadha, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Karnataka, will take instructions on the following aspects : -

i) The position of law with respect to ‘Gomala lands’ as it applies to the facts of the present case, after the decisions of the Division Bench of the High Court dated Signature Not Verified 29.11.2000 and Full Court decision dated Digitally signed by 01.11.2003.

KAPIL TANDON Date: 2026.03.16 Reason:

ii) If the High Court was of the opinion that the Revisional Authority has wrongly interfered with the cancellation of Stone Quarrying Lease by senior Geologist dated 27.11.2008, it should have remanded the matter to the concerned statutory authority for reconsideration. Instructions may be obtained about the concerned statutory authority to which the case is to be remanded, if this Court desires to do so.

iii) The mining lease for 10 years was granted on 29.07.2004. However, the appellant could not work the lease due to orders of stay passed by the courts from time to time. Rule 8A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 enables the lessee to work the lease for the period lost due to stay orders of the Court. This will, however, be subject to principle of law laid down by this Court in “Beg Raj Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.” reported in (2003) 1 SCC 726. The said judgment specifically directs that restitution of the lost period will be subject to change in law. It is, therefore, necessary to understand the consequence of the amendments that have been brought to the MMDR Act and subordinate legislations thereunder."

3. Pursuant to the above referred order, Mr. Chadha has taken instructions and has handed over a short statement of facts and law as is relevant for adjudication and determination of the case. We have extracted hereunder the relevant portion of the statement:

"I. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS INFRUCTUOUS

1. In the present case, the Appellant was granted 4 mining leases for a period of 10 years on dt. 29.07.2004 which has expired on dt. 28.07.2014. However, it is the contention of the Appellant that in view of the Impugned Order setting aside his grant of leases and other Orders staying his operation of the same, Rule 8A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 ("KMMCR, 1994") comes to the rescue of the Appellant who could not work the lease. It is this sole contention, according to the Appellant, that does not make the present Appeal infructuous and if he succeeds, would allow him to work the rest of his lease period.

2. The provision which the Appellant seeks aid of is as follows:

"8-A Periods for which Quarry Lease, Licence or Prospecting Licence may be granted -

(1) On and from the date of commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016, all the Quarrying Leases, licences and Prospecting cum quarrying lease unless or otherwise explicitly mentioned in these rules shall be granted for a period of Thirty years for Specified minor minerals and for a period of twenty years for the non-specified minor minerals.

Provided that the period of lease may be extended equal to the period, if it exceeding one year for which the quarry remained closed (dies-non) due to court order or any other order by the Government and dead rent shall not be chargeable for such period."

3. It is subm