GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.versusM/S. OBULAPURAM MINING CO. PVT. LTD.& ORS. ETC.

                           [2010] 6 S.C.R. 796


A             GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
                                    v.
    M/S. OBULAPURAM MINING CO. PVT. LTD.& ORS. ETC.
       (Special Leave Petition (c) Nos.7366-7367 of 2010)
                             MAY 10, 2010
B
    [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, DEEPAK VERMA AND DR.
                   B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

         Interim Orders:
c         Mines and minerals - Right to mine iron ore -
    Boundaries of areas covered under mining /eases disputed
    - Committee constituted to demarcate boundaries - HELD:
    Meanwhile, respondent No.1-Company can be allowed to start
D   the mining operation only in the undisputed area which neither
    falls in the State of Kamataka nor would be abutting Kamafaka
    boundary - It will not be permitted to do any mining operation
    in those areas which according to the base Map dated
    4.5.2010 Annexure Ji' fall within its leased area but may be
    falling in the leased area of other lessees - This permission
E   is granted to respondent No. 1 to work out equities between
    the parties but on account of it, respondent No. 1 shall not be
    able to claim any right as the same would be finally
    adjudicated upon at the time of hearing of the special leave
    petitions - The Committee constituted by order dated
F   22.3.2010 passed by Supreme Court would continue to
    earmark the boundaries of States of Andhra Pradesh and
    Karnataka - Since State of Karnataka is not a party
    respondent in this litigation, Chief Secretary of that State would
    appoint officers of its Forest Department and Mining
G   Department so that it could cooperate and render full
    assistance in the exercise of demarcation within the stipulated
    period - For the purpose of effective demarcation to be
    carried out by the Committee, it shall be open for it to ask
    respondent No. 1 to stop mining operations in that area where
H                                  796
   GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. v.       797
OBULAPURAM MINING CO. PVT. LTD.& ORS. ETC.

demarcation is to be done and the same shall be strictly       A
obeyed by respondent No.1.

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No(s).
7366-67 of 2010.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 26.02.2010 of the High     B
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No.
25910 of 2009 and W.P. No. 26083 of 2009.

     G.E. Vahanvati, AG, Gopal Subramaniam, SG, K.
Parasaran, P.P Rao, Mukul Rohatgi, P.S. Narasimha, T.V.        C
Ratnam, Paari Vendhan, K. Raghavacharayulu, Sridhar
Potaraju, Madukar, D.Julius R., Gaichangpau Gangmei, Aman
Ahluwalia, D.S. Mahra, G. Umapathy, M.M. Manivel (for Rakesh
J<. Sharma), for the apearing parties.
                                                               D
    The following order of the Court was delivered

                           ORDER

     1. Determination of right to mining iron ore, a natural
resource, has reached this Court in second round of litigation. E
Respondent No.1 in both the Special Leave Petitions had
challenged the Order of State of Andhra Pradesh issued on
25.11.2009, suspending the mining operations of the
respondent No.1-Company (R-1 is different in both SLP's),
based on the proceedings of Principal Chief Conservator of F
Forests, Hyderabad dated 6.11.2009, 20.11.2009 and letter
dated 23.11.2009 issued by Member of Central Empowered
Committee. Against the interim order passed in favour of the
respondent No.1-Company by the High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad, State had preferred to approach this Court in G
SLP(C)Nos .35169-35170 of 2009 titled Government of
Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Mis Obu/apurrn Mining Co. Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors. on the ground that no case was made out by
respondent No.1-Company for grant of injunction, against those
orders challenged in the writ petition and therefore, those
                                                                H
    798       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 6 S.C.R.


A   interim orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
    be vacated and till the pendency of the Special Leave Petitions
    inqJ:iis Court, they be stayed.

        2. Those matters had come up for hearing before this
8 Court on 14.1.2010. Since the Special Leave Petitions were
  against the interim orders passed by the High Court, it was
  deemed fit and proper to dispose of the same with a request
  to the High Court to consider the matter on merits, in
  accordance with law, within a period of four weeks. However,
C it was directed that the interim order passed by this Court would
  continue, meaning thereby that no mining operation would be
  carried out by respondent no.1 till the pendency of the writ
  petitions.

         3. The relevant part of the said order dated 14.1.2010,
0   passed by this Court is reproduced hereinbelow for ready
    reference:

          "We make it clear that both the parties are allowed to raise
          their contentions in respect of the report of the C.E.C. The
          pendency of any matter regarding this before this Court
E
          need not preclude the High Court from considering the
          C.E.C. Report on merits. We also make it clear that this
          Court had not specifically directed the C.E.C. to file its
          Report as regards these leases. The High Court shall also
          hear the C.E.C. who is made as one of the respondents
F
          in these proceedings. The facts stated by the C.E.C. may
          be considered on merits by the High Court. One of the
          conditions in the impugned order is that the State
          Government shall be free to identify, demarcate and fix the
          boundaries of the leased areas after giving notices to the
G         applicants. It may be done by the State Government and
          the interim stay ordered by this Court will continue, except
          as regards this condition, till the High Court passes a final
          order. The parties would appear before the High Court on
          18.01.2010. These appeals are disposed of accordingly.
H         Consequently, Special Leave Petition (C)Nos. 1301/2010
    GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. v.       799
 OBULAPURAM MINING CO. PVT. LTD.& ORS. ETC.

    and 1379/2010 are also disposed of. No costs.                      A

         As learned counsel for the respondent points out that
    they have got international agreements, the High Court
    should endeavour to dispose of the matters as early as
    possible, at least within a period of four weeks."
                                                                       B
     4. In the light of the aforesaid order passed by this Court,
the matter was heard again by the Division Bench of the High
Court on merits. By a detailed and reasoned judgment and
order, High Court was pleased to allow the writ petitions filed
by respondent No.1 and the orders challenged in the writ               C
petitions were set aside and quashed.

     5. State of Andhra Pradesh, once again feeling aggrieved
by the impugned final order, approached this Court by filing two
separate Special Leave Petitions. The same came up for                 D
hearing before the Bench on 11.3.2010. On the said date, the
following Order came to be passed:

     "List on 22.3.2010.

     Status quo shall be maintained till then."                        E

      6. On 22.3.2010, the matter was heard for some time
through their learned counsel appearing for both sides. Looking
to the serious allegations and counter-allegations levelled by
the parties, as an interim measure, it was thought fit to first work
                                                                       F
out the boundaries of the disputed mining leases and the same
be determined/demarcated by experts, only then, it was thought
fit to pass an appropriate order with regard to vacating/
modifying order of status quo. dated 11.3.2010. Relevant
operative part of the order dated 22.3.2010 is reproduced              G
hereinbelow:

           "As an interim measure, we direct that boundaries
     of these six mining leases be determined/demarcated by
     a team consisting of senior representatives/officer of the
     Survey of India from Dehradun Headquarters Heading the            H
    800       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 6 S.C.R.


A         Team. Others would be member from MoEF, Mining
          Department, Forest Department and Revenue Department
          of State of Andhra Pradesh. Representatives of lessees
          with assistance of surveyor, if any, can be represented in
          the team of survey only to facilitate the team to complete
B         the work as mentioned hereinabove at an early date.

                 The first respondent have got three mining leases
          consisting of 68.5 hectares, 25.98 hectares and 39.5
          hectares respectively. The team headed by Survey of India
          is directed to survey in respect of 68.5 hectares of land
c         first and to file a Report on or before 9.4.2010. As soon
          as the survey of this lease is over, they can proceed with
          the rest of the mining leases held by the other five lessees.
          The team shall meet on 26.3.2010 and start measurement
          work soon thereafter on day-to-day basis. There shall be
D         no mining operations in these leases till 9.4.2010.

              Copy of this order be remitted to Survey of India
          Headquarters, Dehradun immediately and it be faxed also.

                List on 9.4.201 O."
E
          ·1. An interim Report came to be submitted by the
    Committee constituted by this Court on 9.4.2010. In the said
    interim Report, following recommendations for further work were
    asked for:
F
          "(1) The lease sketches based on which the leases have
          been allotted to different mine holders, have quite
          appreciable linear and angular misclosures. They need to
          be revised by Government of Andhra Pradesh.
G         (2) All lease area sketches in each cluster should be made
          with reference to at least two common reference points
          which are permanent in nature like village tri-junction,
          village boundary/inter-State boundary pillars with their co-
          ordinates. Offset from interstate boundary should be
H
   GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. v.       801
OBULAPURAM MINING CO. PVT. LTD.& ORS. ETC.

    clearly mentioned on sketches.                                       A

    (3) Inter-state boundary between Andhra Pradesh and
    Karnataka States has been demarcated as shown by local
    officials of both the Govts. as appearing on latest Survey
    of India topograp.1ical map. But it has to be verified by the
                                                                         B
    govt. concerned. Lease areas are adjoining inter-state
    boundary falling in Bellary reserved forest. There is a long
    standing boundary dispute between adjoining states in this
    area. This issue has to be resolved before demarcation
    can be started.
                                                                         c
     (4) There should be no mining operation during survey
     work.

          Once the above requirements for initiation of
     surveying and demarcation work is fulfilled, Survey of India D
     team can demarcate the boundaries of all six leases with ·
     boundary pillars co-ordinated in grid as well as spherical
     terms."

     8. In view of this, we directed that matter be listed for further
hearing on 23.4.2010 but Final Report was not filed by the said          E
date, instead, was filed subsequently on 30.4.2010, alongwith
Annexures. While submitting the Final Report, Committee
made the following recommendations:

     "(3)Recommendations:                                                F

     (3.1 )Considering major discrepancies in mining lease
     sketches, entire lease sketches issued in Bellary Reserve
     Forest area need to be reviewed. All lease sketches have
     to be re-drawn correctly with reference to at least two             G
     reference (permanent) points on ground. Two departments
     of same Government should not issue two. different
     approved sketches.

     (3.2) Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Chief
     Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Chief                   H
    802       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 6 S.C.R.


A         Secretary of Karnataka may be directed to decide the
          Inter-State boundary between Karnataka & Andhra
          Pradesh in Bellary Reserve Forest area to facilitate
          demarcation work.

          (3.3) There should be no mining operations during
B
          demarcation work.

          (3.4) To avoid any dispute in future, all pillars on boundaries
          of mine leases should be provided latitude and longitude
          which will be done during demarcation work."
c
        9. In the light of the afo1esaid recommendations having
    been made by the Committee constituted by this Court, we have
    heard learned counsel for parties at length, perused the interim
    as well as final Report, as also the records.
D       10. Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General
  ·appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh as well as Mr. Gopal
   Subramaniam, learned Solicitor General appearing for Survey
   of India, strenuously contended before us that unless
   recommendations of the final Report of the Committee are not
E implemented in letter and spirit, respondent No.1-Company
   should not be allowed to carry on mining of Iron Ore as the
   mining operations are likely to seriously affect demarcation and
  determination of boundaries between two States, i.e. State of
  Andhra Pradesh and State of Karnataka. It was further
F contended by them that the said exercise is likely to be
  completed within a period of three months. In the meanwhile
  the interim order of status quo passed by this Court, in earlier
   round of litigation, which is in operation for the last about four
  months should be allowed to continue till the said exercise is
G completed.

       11. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing
  for Respondent No.1, Mr. K. Parasaran, Mr. P.P. Rao, Mr.
  Mukul Rohatgi, ably assisted by their juniors vehemently
H contended before us that the final Report filed by Survey of India
    GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. v.       803
 OBULAPURAM MINING CO. PVT. LTD.& ORS. ETC.

would reveal that respondent No.1-Company cannot be blamed            A
at all as it has n~ither encroached nor has done any mining
operations out of the leased area. Therefore, they have
contended that no prima facie case has been made out by the
petitioners to stop the mining operations even now. It was also
contended by them that the time has now come when equities            B
are to be worked out and looking to the international contracts
entered into by respondent No.1 with various international
Companies, this Court should allow the mining operation, at
least from those areas which can be said to be undisputed.

      12. It was also suggested during the course of the hearing C
by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 that in
any case, they would not carry out mining operations within 100
to 150 metres from the Karnataka border as has been shown
in the base~map filed by Survey of India on 4.5.201il (Annexure
'A') which shall fotm part of this order. It was also submitted by D
them that to safeguard the interest of the petitioner-State, they
would erect a barbed wire fencing throughout Karnataka border
with regard to those leases which are abutting Karnataka:
border 150 metres away from the same and in any case, would
not carry out any mining operations in those areas or other E
disputEh:I areas till final demarcation of boundaries is
completed.

     13. On the submissions as having been advanced by
learned counsel for parties, we have given our serious thought        F
and deliberations to the same. In our considered opinion,
respondent No.1-Company can be allowed to start the mining
operation only with regar_9 to undisputed area which neither falls
in the State of Karnataka nor would be abutting Karnataka
boundary. It will also not be permitted to do any mining              G
_operation in those areas which according to the base Map
dated 4.5.2010 Annexure 'A' fall within its leased area but may
be falling in the leased area of other lessees. To clarify further,
we direct that mining operations, if at all are to be carried out
by respondent No.1, then it shall be done only and only in the
                                                                      H
    804     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 6 S.C.R.


A undisputed areas. If they try to encroach upon any other area,
  then it shall be open for the petitioners to forthwith stop the
  mining operations of respondent No.1. This permission is
  granted to Respondent No.1 to work out equities between the
  parties but on account of it Respondent No.1 shall not be able
B to claim any right as the same would be finally adjudicated upon
  at the time of hearing of the Special Leave Petitions.

        14. To oversee the directions to be followed by respondent
  No.1, the same Committee appointed by us would put a
  temporary fence at the Karnataka border as per base map
C (Annexure 'A') at the cost of respondent No.1 and be further at
  liberty to visit the spot at any time and to report the matter to
  us. In c~se of any violation thereof respondent No.1 would be
  exposing itself for committing contempt of this Court. Mining
  operations can be started by the respondent No.1 only after it
D would put a barbed wire fencing of 1O' high throughout
  Karnataka border.

       15. The Committee constituted vide order dated
  22.3.2010 passed by this Court would continue to earmark the
E boundaries of State of Andhra Pradesh and State of
  Karnataka. Since State of Karnataka is not a party respondent
  in this litigation, we request the Chief Secretary of State of
  Karnataka to appoint officers of its Forest Department and
  Mining Department so that it could cooperate and render full
F assistance in the exercise of demarcation within the stipulated
  period.

     ,  16. Even though, the Committee has requested us for grant
   of further period of three months to effectively complete the
.G process of demarcation, but we deem it fit and proper to grant
   only two months' time to them keeping in mind, the ensuing rainy
   season.

        17. We also clarify that either of the parties would be at
  liberty to approach this Court for further direction&, if need, so
H arises. With the aforesaid directions, the interim order passed
   GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. v.                             805
OBULAPURAM MINING CO. PVT. LTD.& ORS. ETC.

by this Court on 11.3.2010 and extended from time to time              A
stands modified to the aforesaid extent.

     18. All parties would fully co-operate with the Committee
to complete the demarcation work at the earliest and would not
cause any hindrance in its work. They would also not in any            8
manner try to overreach this order.

     19. For the purpose of effective demarcation to be carried
out by Committee, it shall be open for it to ask respondent No.1
to stop mining operations in that area where demarcation is to
be done and the same shall be strictly obeyed by respondent            C
No.1.

    20. Special Leave Petitions be listed for hearing in due
course.
                                                                       D
R.P.                              Special Petitions adjourned.




                                                         "" "\',
                                                        ..... .;· .

                                                         i •