ASHOK KUMAR LINGALAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

                   [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 800


A                    ASHOK KUMAR LINGALA
                                  v.
                 STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 8819 of 2011)

                        OCTOBER 18, 2011
B
           [CYRAIC JOSEPH AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]

         Mines and minerals - Mining lease - Overlapping of the
    area covered by the two leases - Appellant granted mining
C   lease in respect of a private land whereas respondent no. 3
    granted mining lease in respect of government and forest land
    alone - Writ petition by the appellant seeking direction to the
    respondent to refrain from interfering with the mining activities
    of the appellant which the lease deed authorised him to carry
D   out and writ petition by respondent No.3 challenging the very
    grant of the mining lease in favour of the appellant - High
    Court holding that area forming subject matter of the mining
    leases granted to the appellant on one hand and respondent
    on the other to be determined by the civil court in the suit
E   pending before it on basis of the evidence led by the parties
    - On appeal, held: When large areas are granted for mining
    purposes, some confusion as to the boundaries of such areas
    especially if they are adjacent to each other is nothing
    abnormal - In such cases a fresh demarcation is to be
F   conducted and boundaries is to be fixed so that the parties
    holding such areas stay within the limits of their respective
    areas instead of straying into the adjacent area - Order of
    restraining mining operation was meant to be a temporary and
    interim arrangement meant to remain in force only till such
G   time the Director (Mines) examined the issue regarding the
    alleged overlapping of the area and passed a final order on
    the subject - Ownership of the areas claimed by both the
    lessees vests in different owners - So long as the areas leased ·
    to them are identifiable on spot by different suNey numbers
H                                800
ASHOK KUMAR LINGALA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 801
                 & ORS.
and boundaries, there is no question of any overlapping -     A
Thus, proper identification and demarcation of the areas to
be carried out and directions issued for the same.

     Certain land dedicated to a temple, was given to 'P'
for services rendered to the temple. After the enactment      B
of Karnataka (Sandur Area) l~am Abolition Act, 1976, 'P'
was granted occupancy rights in respect of the said land
(private patta land) and his name was entered in the
record of rights. Thereafter, wife of 'P' allowed the
appellant to obtain a mining lease over the said land. The    c
Authorities found the property to be private patta land
and gave no objection for the grant. The Central
Government approved for the grant of land. The State
Government issued notification sanctioning a mining
lease over the said area and the lease deed was
                                                              0
executed.

     Respondent No. 3-'S' held a lease in respect of
Government and forest land situate in 'S' Area. It is the
appellant's case that when he started the mining activity,
the Director of Mines and Geology restrained the              E
appellant from conducting mining activities on the
ground that the area for which the lease was granted to
the appellant overlapped the area granted to 'S'.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed an application to the
Director of Mines and Geology as also to the State            F
Government. He submitted that even when 3rd though
respondent No. 3 had filed a suit for an injunction but no
injunction was issued by the court, yet the Director of
Mines issued an injunction. The appellant filed a writ
petition challenging the said order/communication and         G
prayed for a direction to the respondent to refrain from
interfering with the mining activities of the appellant.
Respondent No.3 filed a writ petition challenging the grant
of the mining lease in favour of the appellant. The High
Court disposed of the writ petitions holding that the         H
    802     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011} 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A identity of the area forming subject matter of mining
  leases granted to the appellant and to the respondent
  would be decided by the Civil Court on the basis of
  evidence adduced before it; and that if there is an
  overlapping of the area covered by two leases, the lessee
B who claims under the lease granted earlier in point of time
  would have a superior right to carry out the mining
  activities in preference to the one granted earlier.
  Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeals.

          Allowing the appeals, the Court
c
        HELD: 1.1 The grant of occupancy rights in favour
   of 'P' by the Statutory Tribunal was not under challenge
   before the High Court nor was any challenge ever thrown
   to the orders passed by it or the implementation thereof
D in the relevant revenue record before any other forum.
   Even the State under whom respondent No.3 'S' claims
   the right to carry out mining operations, never found fault
   with the grant of land in favour of 'P'. It is, therefore, too
   late in the day for any one to question the legality of the
E order granting land situate in Survey No. 27 to 'P' or to
   assert that notwithstanding what has happened in the
   statutory proceedings, the area falling under Sy. No. 27
   must be recognised as government land, thus, a part of
   area leased to 'S'. Secondly because in the record of
c- rights Survey No.27 is shown to be privately held by 'P'
   and after his death by 'Y' his widow. The State
   Government and 'KD' Temple to whom the land was
   dedicated before its grant to 'P' accepted that position;
   and raised no dispute or question as to the correctness
G of the revenue record. The report submitted by the
   Deputy Commissioner, the spot inspection, and the very
   grant of a lease qua the area in question, all lend
   credence to the revenue record that recognises the land
   in question to be private land. [Para 16] [816-A-F]
H
 ASHOK KUMAR LINGALA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 803
                  & ORS.

     1.2 It is obvious that when large areas are granted for   A
mining purposes, some confusion as to the boundaries
of such areas especially if they are adjacent to each other
is nothing abnormal. What in such cases needs to be
done is to conduct a fresh demarc,tion and fix
boundaries so that the parties. holding such areas stay        B
within the limits of their respective areas instead of
straying into the adjacent area. (Para 17] (817-C-D]

      1.3 The mere pendency of a suit in a civil court could
 not be an impediment for the appellant to start or continue C
 his mining activity, unless there was an injunction
 restraining him from doing so. No such injunction has
 been issued by the civil court. That does not, however,
 mean that the Government or the Director (Mines) for that
 matter could not in the event of any dispute between t~e
                                                             0
 appellant and 'S' regarding the identity and demarcation
 of the area leased to both of them direct the appellant to
 refrain from carrying on the mining activity as an interim
measure till such time the issue was sorted out. But once
such an interim direction was issued, the authority doing
so had to take steps to resolve the dispute. It could not E
let the dispute fester and result in a stalemate. So also
the restraint order could not be continued by the High
Court till the dispute was adjudicated upon by the Civil
Court. Doing so would amount to ;Jne authority making
an interim order pending a final order to be made by F
another. The power to make an interim order is, except
where it is specifically taken away by the statute, implicit
in the power to make a final order. It is exercised by the
authority who has to make the final order or an authority
exercising appellate or revisional jurisdiction, against an G
order granting or refusing an interim order. The exercise
of the power implies that the authority seized of the
proceedings in which such an order is made will
eventually pass a final order; the interim order serving
                                                               H
    804   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A only as a step in aid of such final order. The law, does
  not permit the making of an interim order by one authority
  or Court pending adjudication of the dispute by another
  except in the situation mentioned above. The order of
  restraining mining operation was meant to be a temporary
B and interim arrangement meant to remain in force only till
  such time the Director (Mines) examined the issue
  regarding the alleged overlapping of the area and passed
  a final order on the subject. [Para 19] [817-H; 818-A-G]

C        1.4 The restraint order passed by the Director (Mines)
    in the absence of the report of the Drawing Section which
    was the sole basis for the order passed by the Director
    (Mines) could not be justified. If the Drawing Section had
    indeed undertaken an exercise the same ought to have
    been disclosed to the High Court and to this Court so that
0   the validity of any such exercise could be examined.
    Absence of the report said to have been made by the
    Drawing Section and non-production of any material
    indicating the process by which the Drawing Section
    came to the conclusion that there was overlapping of the
E   two areas, one privately owned and the other belonging
    to the State, lend support to the submission that the order
    of restraint passed by the Director was made in haste.
    However, there is no inclination to dwell any further on
    this aspect nor it is proposed to vacate the interim
F   restraint order issued by the Director on the ground that
    it was based on material that was tenuous and remained
    un-substantiated. The real problem lies in the
    demarcation of the two areas leased to the appellant on
    the one hand and 'S' on the other. The ownership of the
G   areas claimed by both the lessees vests in different
    owners. So long as the areas leased to them are
    identifiable on spot by different survey numbers and
    boundaries, there is no question of any overlapping. The
    confusion regarding boundaries in turn is a matter the
H
ASHOK KUMAR LINGALA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 805
                 & ORS.         •,
answer to which lies only in a proper demarcation of the       A
areas. [Para 20] (818-H; 819-A-E]

    1.5 It was submitted that dispute between· the
appellant and 'S' has considerably delayed the mining
activity of the appellant, and that a direction ought to be    8
issued to the authorities to expedite the process of
demarcation; that keeping in view the bad blood
generated between the parties it would be more
appropriate to entrust the entire process of demarcation
and identification of the leased areas to the Geological       C
Survey of India. However, there is no reason to issue any
such direction at this stage. While the appellant may have
some apprehensions about the fairness of the officers of
the concerned department, those are not considered
sufficient to mistrust the. State functionaries in the
                                                               0
absence of any material to suggest that there is any real
likelihood of bias. That does not mean that the process
of identification and demarcation of the area leased to the
appellant should not be undertaken by senior level
officers of the State Government to ensure that there is       E
no scope for any mischief or miscarriage of justice. [Para
21] (819-F-H; 820-A]

     1.6 The impugned order passed by the High Court
is set aside and the writ petition filed by the appellant is
allowed partly and to the following extent:                    F

    (1) The Secretary, Department of Industries and
Commerce, Government of Karnataka, shall constitute a
Committee of officers for conduct of the demarcation and
identification of the boundaries of the area leased to the     G
appellant in terms of Mining Lease No.2622.
    (2) The Secretary shall monitor the progress made by
the Committee from time to time. A suitable order based
on the report and other material, if any, placed before the
                                                               H
    806     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 14 (AODL.) S.C.R.


A   Secretary shall then be passed by him after affording to
    each party an opportunity of being heard in the matter.
    The order so passed shall supersede the order dated
    5.3.2010 passed by the Director (Mines).

        (3)The above directions shall be carried out by the
8
    Secretary expeditiously. [Para 22] [820-B-G]

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION : Civil Appeal No.
    8819 of 2011.

c       From the Judgment & Order dated 01.09.2010 of the
    High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.P. No. 17281 of
    2010.
                                 WITH
D   C.A. No. 8820 of 2011.

        Dushyant A. Dave, L.M. Chidanandayya, Prachi Bajpai,
    M.P. Shorawala for the Appellant.

         T.R. Andhyarujina, Sunil Dogra, A. Venayaga, Balan for
E   the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.

F      2. These appeals arise out of an order dated 1st
  September, 2010 passed by the High Court of Karnataka
  whereby Writ Petition No.17281 of 2010 filed by the appellant
  has been disposed of with the direction that the question of
  identity of the area forming the subject matter of the mining
G leases granted to the appellant on the one hand and
  respondent Mis Sandur Manganese & Iron Ore Company Ltd.
  ('SIMORE' for short) on the other, shall be determined by the
  Civil Court in the suit pending before it on the basis of the
  evidence that the parties may choose to lead. The High Court
H has further held that in case the Civil Court comes to the
/




    ASHOK KUMAR LINGALA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 807
              & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
    conclusion that the area over which the mining leases have been        A
    granted to the rival parties does not overlap then both of them
    would be entitled to carry out their mining activities under their
    respective lease agreements. In case, however, the Civil Court
    is of the opinion that there is an overlapping of the area covered
    by the two leases, the lessee who claims under the lease               B
    granted earlier in point of time would have a superior right to
    carry out the mining activities in preference to the one granted
    later. The facts in brief are as under:
                                                                '
          3. Land measuring 4.42 hectares situated at village              C
    Devagiri, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District falling under Surveys No.
    56/P, 57/P, 58/P and 91/P was according to the appellant
    dedicated to Kumaraswamy Devaru Temple. The entire extent
    of land which now falls in new Survey No.27 was given to one-
    Pennaiah S/o Dodda Pennaiah for cultiv~tion in lieu of the             D
    services which he was rendering to the temple. With the
    enactment of the Karnataka (Sandur Area) lnam Abolition Act,
    1976 abolishing all rights in inam lands and permitting the
    cultivators and tenants of the land to make applications under
    Section 10 of the Act for re-grant and registration, the cultivator-
                                                                           E·
    Pennaiah also rnade an application to the Land Tribunal, Sandur
    Taluk, Bellary District seeking a re-grant. The said application
    eventually culminated in the Tribunal passing an order dated
    22nd October, 1981 granting occupancy rights in favour of the
    tenant, pursuant whereto the Tehsildar issued a registration
    certificate registering his occupancy rights and entering his          F
    name in the record of rights.

          4. The appellant's further case is that Pennaiah continued
    to cultivate the land personally especially when neither the order
    of re-grant was challenged before the Land Tribunal nor his            G
    cultivation objected to by anyone including the 3rd respondent
    who held a lease in respect of Government and forest land
    situate in Sandur Area. The appellant asserts that the land
    aforementioned is a piece of private patta land that was held
    by Pennaiah during his life time and by his widow Yellamma             H
    808   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A after his death. Neither Pennaiah nor Yellamma had in their
  capacity as Pattadars in cultivating possession of the land ever
  offered the property to SI MORE or granted any right or any other
  interest in its favour. On the contrary Yellamma in her capacity
  as Pattadar had permitted the appellant to obtain a mining
B lease under the provisions of Minor Mineral (Development and
  Regulation) Act, read with Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960
  which application was sent to the Deputy Commissioner,
  Bellary District, to verify the status of the land and also to the
  Deputy Director of Mining and Geology for conducting an actual
c spot inspection. Both the authorities had, according to the
  appellant, submitted their respective reports in which the said
  property was found to be private Patta land. They had, therefore,
  offered no objection to the grant of a mining lease qua the
  same.
D                      f
       5. It was on the basis of the reports aforementioned that
  the State Government had sought the approval of the Central
  Government for the grant of a mining lease in favour of the
  appellant which approval was upon due and proper
  consideration granted by the Central Government. The State
E Government had pursuant thereto issued a Notification dated
  15.1.2010 sanctioning a mining lease over an area of 4.42
  hectares situate in Devagiri Village Sandur Taluk Bellary Distt.,
  as per the sketch furnished by the Director Department of
  Mines and Geology. Boundaries of the area in question were
F fixed for an extent of 3.36 hectares in terms of letter dated
  2.2.2010 issued by the Deputy Director Mines and Geology,
  Hospet and a lease deed executed and registered with the
  Sub-Registrar under ML No.2622.

G     6. The appellant's case is that when he started the mining
  activities in exercise of his right under the lease
  aforementioned, the Director of Mines and Geology,
  Government of Karnataka issued a communication dated 5th
  March, 2010 by which the appellant was restrained from
H conducting any such activities on the ground that the area
  ASHOK KUMAR LINGALA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 809
            & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
  covered by the lease granted to the appellant overlapped the         A·
  area stated to have been granted to the SIMORE respondent
  no.3 herein. On receipt of the said letter the appellant filed an
  application to the Director of Mines and Geology objecting to
  the order and pointing out that the same had been passed
  without issuing to the appellant any notice or granting to him       B
  any opportunity of being heard in the matter. The appellant also
  represented to the State Government against the direction
  issued by the Director of Mines and Geology and asserted that
  even when 3rd respondent SIMORE had.filed a Civil Suit in the
  Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kudligi and prayed for        C
  an injunction no such injunction had been issued by the said
  Court. The Director of Mines was not, therefore, justified in
  issuing an injunction which the Civil Court had not issued; on
  the very same factual matrix. The restraint order issued by the
  Director of Mines and Geology continued to remain in force           D
  despite the objections raised by the appellant. As a matter of
  fact, the Director of Mines wrote a letter dated 25.5.2010 to the
· appellant saying that order dated 5.3.2010 stopping mining
  operations could not be vacated or modified. The appellant was
  in that backdrop forced to approach the High Court of                E
  Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No.17281 of 2010
  challenging the said order/communication on several grounds
  and praying for a direction to the respondent to refrain from
  interfering with the mining activities of the appellant which the
  lease deed authorised him to carry out. Respondent ·no.3,            F
  SI MORE filed Writ Petition No.18043 of 2010 challenging the
  very grant of the mining lease in favour of the appellant. The
  said two writ petitions were finally disposed of by the High Court
  in terms of a common order dated 1st September, 2010
  impugned in the present appeals.                                     G

      7. Relying upon the orders passed by the Director,
 Department of Mines and Geology dated 5th March, 2010 and
 25th May, 2010, the High Court concluded that there was
 overlapping of areas held by the appellant and SI MORE under
 their respective lease deeds. The High Court held that the            H
    810     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A appellant had not been in a position to produce any evidence
  to show that the conclusion drawn by the Director of Mines
  regarding overlapping of the areas was erroneous. The High
  Court observed:

B         "We permitted learned counsel for Ashok Kumar Lingala
          to examine the same. Even therefrom, learned counsel
          representing Ashok Kumar Lingala could not repudiate the
          finding of fact recorded in the two impugned orders.

          xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
c
          xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
          15. From the two orders issued by the Director,
          Department of Mines & Geology dated 05.03.2010 and
          25.05.2010, we have no other alternative or hesitation but
D
          to conclude, that 'Mis Simore' had been granted a
          mining lease, in respect of the same land, well before
          Ashok Kumar Unga/a was awarded the mining lease.
          That being so, the claim of Ashok Kumar Unga/a could
          not have been considered for grant of a mining lease over
E
          the area which comprised of part of the mining lease
          already granted to 'Mis Simore', as the application of
          Ashok Kumar Unga/a was bound to be treated as a
          premature application. This inference is inevitable from a
          collective reading of rules 59 and 60 of t.1e Mineral Rules,
F
          and Section 24A of the Mines and Minerals Act."

                                                         (underlined)

       8. Having held that there was an overlapping of the areas
G covered by the two leases, the High Court interpreted the rules
  to record a finding that even when the area leased to SIMORE
  may include private land owned by Smt. Yallamma and even
  when Yallamma has not granted any surface rights to it,
  SIMORE could undertake mining activity in the private area by
H paying compensation to Yallamma before undertaking such
ASHOK KUMAR LINGALA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 811
          & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
activities. The High Court observed:                                 A
     "On the issue whether 'M/s Simore' could carry out mining
     activities over the land owned by the private owner Smt.
     Yallamma, the provisions relied upon by the learned
     counsel representing 'M/s Simore' leave no room for any 8
     doubt, that in case mining activity is carried out by 'Mis
     Simore' over private land, compe,nsation will have to be
     paid by 'M/s Simore' to the private land owner under rule
     72 of the Mineral Rules. But the submission of this learned
     counsel representing Ashok Kumar LiAgala, also leave no C
     room for any doubt, that 'M/s Si more', in spite of the grant
     of a mining lease covering private owned land, would not
     be in a position to unilaterally and arbitrarily conduct mining
     activities thereon without the consent/permission of the
     land owner Smt. Yallamma. The instant conclusion is
                                                                     0
     based on the second proviso under rule 22(3) (i) (h) of the
     Mining Rules which mandates, that unless permission/
     authorization is granted by the land owner, mining activity
     cannot be carried out. Even if it is assumed, that prior
     consent of the land owner was not obtained by 'M/s
     Simore' before obtaining the lease deed from the State · E
     Government, still the second proviso under rule 22(3) (i)(h)
     of the Mining Rules extracted above, mandates that, prior
     to entering into private owned land for mining activities,
     permission from the land owner is a necessary pre~
     requisite."                                                     F

     9. What followed the above two findings, one touching the
question of overlapping of the lease areas and the other dealing
with the effect of the overlapping qya privately owned land, is
interesting. The High Court took a somersault and held that the      G
question of overlapping could not be decided by it authoritatively
and left the same must be decided by the Civil Court on the
basis of evidence adduced before it. It observed:
     "Thus viewed, it is not possible for us to record any           H
    812     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         concrete finding on the factual aspect of the matter. We
          have noticed hereinabove, that a civil suit is pending
          between the parties. It will be open to the rival parties to
          lead evidence therein, if they are so advised, to determine
          the specific identity of the property over which mining
B         leases have been granted to them. In case such evidence
          leads to the conclusion, that the land over which mining
          leases have been granted to the rival parties, do not
          overlap, then both of them would be entitled to carry out
          mining activities, under the lease agreements executed by
c         the State Government in their favour. In case the factual
          finding is to the contrary, then on account of the
          conclusions drawn hereinabove, the earlier licensee will
          have to be granted the superior right to exclusively carry
          out mining activities. As such, 'Mis Simore' shall have a
o         preferential right over Ashok Kumar Lingala. In such an
          eventuality, no interference will be called for with the
          impugned orders dated 05.03.2010 and 25.05.2010."

          10. Appearing for the appellant Mr. Dushyant A. Dave,
    learned senior counsel strenuously argued that the High Court
E   had totally misdirected itself both on facts and in law. He
    submitted that the High Court had failed to notice that the lease
    granted in favour of respondent no.3 SIMORE was in respect
    of government and forest land alone. No part of any private land
    covered the lease in its favour nor was any claim to ti1at effect
F   ever made by respondent no.3 SIMORE. In support of that
    submission learned counsel drew our attention to the
    application filed before the Government of Karnataka by
    respondent no.3 SIMORE seeking renewal of the lease in the
    year, 1992. In particular, he relied upon the answers given by
G   SIMORE to the queries made in paras viii (a), x-A(a) and (b)
    of the renewal application to argue that respondent No.3
    SIMORE had unequivocally stated that the lease sought to be
    renewed in its favour comprised government land and no part
    of it was owned or occupied by any private party. Paras viii (a},
H   x-A(a} and (b} of the renewal application are as under:
ASHOK KUMAR LINGALA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 813
          & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

viii       Particular of the mining     ML No. 1179                   A
a)         lease of which renewal is    Area: 16.74 sq. miles
           desired                      In Sandur Taluk of Bellary
                                        District Karnataka
x-A
a)        Does the applicant          ·Yes (Government land).         B
          continue to have surface
          rights over the area of the
          land for which he requires
          renewal of the mining
          lease.                                                      c
b)        If not, has he obtained the Not applicable
          consent of the owner and
          occupier for undertaking
          mining operations. If so,
          the consent of the owner                                    D
          and occupier of the land
          obtained in writing, be
          filed.

     11. He also drew our attention to the report of inspection       E
dated 22nd February, 1993 submitted by Government of
Karnataka, a copy whereof has been placed on record which
too clearly mentioned that the area covered by the lease sought
to be renewed was forest and government land. He particularly
drew our attention to the following passage in the said report:       F

       "The present application for renewal is for third renewal.
       The whole area of 16.74 sq. miles is bounded on the North
       by Sandur State Forest on the South by Hospet Taluk on
       the East by Nauluti forest and on the West by Kudligi Taluk.   G
       Area is Government and it is forest land also."

     12. Mr. Dave next drew our attention to the plaint filed by
respondent no.3 SIMORE in. OS No.9/2010 'to buttress his
submission that respondent no.3 SIMORE had not claimed any
private land to be a part of its mining lease area. Reference in      H
                                                                          I
    814     SUPREME COURTREPORTS (2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A this regard was particularly made to para 11 of the plaint which
  is to the following effect:

          "11. Further, the Plaintiff hereby submits that the Plaintiff
          is in physical possession and enjoyment of the Schedule
          land for more than five decades. The Schedule land is an
B
          un-surveyed land and accordingly the NOC issued by the
          Deputy Commissioner, Bellary on 31.03.1998 refers to the
          same as blocks and confirms that the same is a Revenue
          Land (Government Land). The claim of the Defendant that
          he has obtained Mining Lease over an area of 3.36 ha
c         under survey No.27 appears to be dubious or it may be
          pertaining to some other land. In addition to this, the Plaintiff
          has paid Rs.104 crore towards Net Present Value
          Compensatory Afforestation charges on the 1615.64 of
          forest land and Rs.2,07,79,920/- towards Environmental
D         Protection Fee on the 247.38 ha of Revenue land held by
          it under Mining Lease Nos. 2580 (Old No.1179)."

       13. Mr. Dave vehemently argued that inasmuch as the High
  Court had overlooked the material on record it had fallen in a
E palpable error in assuming that the land leased to the appellant
  could possibly overlap the area leased to respondent no.3 M/
  s SIMORE. So long as the two lessees were claiming surface
  rights over their respective lease areas under different owners
  the question of overlapping did not arise argued the learned
F counsel. At any rate the area leased to the appellant was not
  only verified as to its nature and ownership but was spot
  inspected and demarcated, which fact was evidenced from the
  reports placed on record. It was, therefore, wholly futile for any
  one to suggest that the areas granted to the two lessees were
G overlapping, contended Mr. Dave.
        14. On behalf of respondent no.3 SIMORE it was on the
  other hand contended by Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, senior counsel ·
  that the respondent no.3 SIMORE did not claim any private land
  to be a part of its lease area. He submitted that even when that
H was so the overlapping which the Director, Mines and Geology
ASHOK KUMAR LINGALA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 815
          & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
had referred to was possible as according to SIMORE the area        A
leased to appellant ought to be treated as a part of government
land. Alternatively, it was contended that while the appellant
may claim to have obtained a lease in respect of privately
owned land the fact of the matter was that the area in which
the appellant intended to conduct his mining activities was a       B
part of the area leased to respondent no.3.

      15. Ms. Anitha Shenoy, counsel appearing for the State
Government and its functionaries argued that the orders passed
by the Director (Mines) suspending mining operations were on        C
the basis of the conclusion drawn by the drawing section of the
mining department according to which the two areas forming
the subject matter of the two leases were overlapping. She
contended that even when the report of the drawing section and
the basis on which this overlapping had been prima facie
established had not been placed on record, the site plans/maps      D
placed on record supported the conclusion that there was some
overlapping. Learned counsel further submitted that the orders
passed by the Director (Mines) were interim in nature and the
question whether or not there was any overlapping had yet to
be determined by the competent authority. She fairly conceded       E
that in the process of any such determination the rival claimants
shall have to be heard by the competent authority.

      16. We have given our careful consideration to the
submissions made at the Bar and perused the record. The facts       F
emerging from the recc,rd place the controversy within a narrow
compass. While the appellant claims that the lease granted to
it is in respect of a privately owned area, respondent no.3
SIMORE claims that the area leased in its favour comprises
government and forest land only. If that be so, as indeed are       G
the positions taken by the parties there is no question of any
overlapping of the two areas for what is government or forest
land cannot be privately owned and vice-versa. Mr.
Andhyarujina all the same made a valiant attempt to persuade
us to hold that the area falling in SuJVey No.27 qua which the
appellant has obtained a lease is, in fact, government land and     H
    816   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A that no part of it is or was at any stage privately owned. What
  he argued in support of that contention was that the grant of
  occupancy rights in favour of Pennaiah was not warranted in
  the facts and circumstances of the case, and if that were so,
  any such grant could be ignored. We regret our inability to
s accept that submission. We say so firstly because, the validity
  of the grant of occupancy rights in favour of Pennaiah by the
  Statutory Tribunal was not under challenge before the High
  Court nor was any challenge ever thrown to the orders passed
  by it or the implementation thereof in the relevant revenue
C record before any other forum. Even the State under whom
  respondent No.3 SIMORE claims the right to carry out mining
  operations, never found fault with the grant of land in favour of
  Pennaiah. It is, therefore, too late in the day for any one to
  question the legality of the order granting land situate in Survey
  No. 27 to Pennaiah, or to assert that notwithstanding what has
0
  happened in the statutory proceedings, the area falling under
  Sy. No. 27 must be recognised as government land, hence a
  part of area leased to SIMORE. Secondly because in the
  record of rights Survey No.27 is shown to be privately held by
  Pennaiah and after his death by Yallamma his widow. The State
E Government and Kumaraswamy Devaru Temple to whom the
  land was dedicated before its grant to Pennaiah, have accepted
  that position; and raised no dispute or question as to the
  correctness of the revenue record. The report submitted by the
  Deputy Commissioner, the spot inspection, and the very grant
F of a lease qua the area in question, all lend credence to the
  revenue record that recognises the land in question to be
  private land.

       17. Such being the case the only question that calls for
G determination is whether respondent no.3 SIMORE is right in
  insisting that the area in which the appellant proposes to carry
  on his mining activity is a part of the area leased to former. It
  was argued by Mr.. Andhyarujina that the area sought to be
  exploited for mining purposes by the appellant comprised the
H workers colony of SIMORE. That assertion was stoutly denied
 ASHOK KUMAR LINGALA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 817
           & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
by the appellant according to whom the mining operations are      A
confined to the area· originally demarcated at the time of the
grant of the lease. Be that as it may what needs to be examined
is whether the appellant is mining within his lease area or
beyond. This would in turn require the area leased to the
appellant to be demarcated again assuming that an earlier         B
demarcation had also taken place, especially because
SI MORE denies any such previous demarcation having been
conducted. According to SIMORE the officer said to have done
so was placed under suspension for dereliction of duties. It is
unnecessary for us to go into the validity of any previous        c
demarcation. It is obvious that when large areas are granted
for mining purposes, some confusion as to the boundaries of
such areas especially if they are adjacent to each other is
nothing abnormal. What in such cases needs to be done is to
conduct a fresh demarcation and fix boundaries so that the        D
parties holding such areas stay within the limits of their
respective areas instead of straying into the adjacent area.

       18. We may at this stage advert to another submission
·made by Mr. Dave that the Director (Mines) could not have
 stopped the mining operations of the appellant on the basis of E
 what was according to Mr. Dave a frivolous complaint filed by
 SMIORE that alleged overlapping of the lease areas. He
 contended that a valid lease having been granted to the
 appellant after following the requisite formalities and the
 procedure prescribed under the relevant rules and after proper F
 demarcation of the privately held area that was available for
 mining, the Director should not have on a sketchy report from
 the Drawing Section of the Department stopped the mining
 activities. It was further contented by Mr. Dave that since the
 mining activity had been stopped under the orders of the G
 Director (Mines), the High Court was in error in not only
 upholding the said direction but extending their efficacy till such
 time the dispute between the parties was resolved by the Civil
 Court.

     19. The mere pendency of a suit in a Civil Court could not   H
    818     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A    be an impediment for the appellant to start or continue his
     mining activity, unless there was an injunction restraining him
    from doing so. No such injunction has been issued by the Civil
     Court. That does not, however, mean that the Government or
     the Director (Mines) for that matter could not in the event of any
B    dispute between the appellant and SIMORE regarding the
     identity and demarcation of the area leased to both of them
     direct the appellant to refrain from carrying on the mining activity
     as an interim measure till such time the issue was sorted out.
     But once such an interim direction was issued, the authority
c    doing so had to take steps to resolve the dispute. It could not
     let the dispute fester and result in a stalemate. So also the
     restraint order could not be continued by the High Court till the
    dispute was adjudicated upon by the Civil Court. Doing so
     would amount to one authority making an interim order pending
     a final order to be made by another. The power to make an
0
     interim order is, except where it is specifically taken away by
    the statute, implicit in the power to make a final order. It is
    exercised by the authority who has to make the final order or
    an authority exercising appellate or revisional jurisdiction,
    against an order granting or refusing an interim order. The
E   exercise of the power implies that the authority seized of the
    proceedings in which such an order is made will eventually pass
    a final order; the interim order serving only as a step in aid of
    such final order. The law, in our view, does not permit the
    making of an interim order by one authority or Court pending
F   adjudication of the dispute by another except in the situation
    mentioned above. Ms. Shenoy was, therefore, right in her
    submission that the order of restraining mining operation was
    meant to be a temporary and interim arrangement meant to
    remain in force only till such time the Director (Mines) examined
G   the issue regarding the alleged overlapping of the area and
    passed a final order on the subject.

      20. Ms. Shenoy was, however, unable to justify the restraint
  order passed by the Director (Mines) in the absence of the
H report of the Drawing Section which was the sole basis for the
ASHOK KUMAR LINGALA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 819
          & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
 order passed by the Director (Mines). If the Drawing Section        A
 had indeed undertaken an exercise the same ought to have
 been disclosed to the High Court and to this Court so that the
validity of any such exercise could be examined. Absence of
the report said to have been made by the Drawing Section and
 non-production of any material indicating the process by which      B
the Drawing Section came to the conclusion that there was
overlapping of the two areas, one privately owned and the other
belonging to the State, lend support to the submission made
by Mr. Dave that the order of restraint passed by the Director
was made in haste. We do not, however, propose to dwell any          c
further on this aspect nor do we propose to vacate the interim
restraint order issued by the Director on the ground that it was
based on material that was tenuous and remained un-
substantiated before us. In our opinion the real problem lies in
the demarcation of the two areas leased to the appellant on          D
the one hand and SIMORE on the other. As observed earlier
the ownership of the areas claimed by both the lessees vests
in different owners. So long as the areas leased to them are
identifiableon spot by different survey numbers and boundaries,
there is no question of any overlapping. The confusion regarding
                                                                     E
boundaries in turn is a matter the answer to which lies only in
a proper demarcation of the areas.
      21. It was submitted by Mr. Dave that dispute between the
appellant and SIMORE has considerably delayed the mining
activity of the appellant, and that a direction ought to be issued
                                                                     F
to the authorities to expedite the process of demarcation. He
urged that keeping in view the bad blood generated between
the parties it would be more appropriate to entrust the entire
process of demarcation and identification of the leased areas
to the Geological Survey of India. We, however, see no reason
to issue any such direction at this stage. While the appellant       G
may have some apprehensions about the fairness of the officers
of the concerned department we do not consider them to be
sufficient for us to mistrust the State functionaries in the
absence of any material to suggest that there is any real
likelihood of bias. That does not mean that the process of           H
    820   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A identification and demarcation of the area leased to the
  appellant should not be undertaken by senior level officers of
  the State Government to ensure that there is no scope for any
  mischief or miscarriage of justice.
        22. In the result we allow these appeals, set aside the
B impugned order passed by the High Court and allow Writ
  Petition No. 17281 of 2010 filed by the appellant in part and t<?
  the following extent:
        (1) The Secretary, Department of Industries and
        Commerce, Govern~ent of Karnataka, shall constitute a
C       Committee of officers for condu~t of the demarcation and
        identification of the boundaries of the area leased to the
       appellant in terms of Mining Lease No.2622. The
       Committee so constituted shall include the Deputy
        Commissioner of the District concerned, the Chief
D      Conservator of Forests or his nominee who shall be an
       officer not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of
       Forests, the Director of Survey and a Senior Officer of the
        Mines Department to be nominated by the Secretary. The
       Secretary shall be free to nominate any other official or
E      officials whom he considers suitable for the purpose of
       identification and demarcation of boundaries of the areas
       covered by the mine held by the appellant.
       (2) The Secretary shall monitor the progress made by the
       Committee from time to time. A suitable order based on
F      the report and other material, if any, placed before the
       Secretary shall then be passed by him after affording to
       each party an opportunity of being heard in the matter. The
       order so passed shall supersede the order dated 5.3.2010
       passed by the Director (Mines).
G      (3) The above directions shall be carried out by the
       Secretary expeditiously but not later than six months from
       the date a copy of this order is received/served upon the
       Secretary to Government by the parties.
       (4) The parties shall bear their own costs.
H N.J.                                           Appeals allowed.