Padmavathi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2345 AP

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                        W.P.No.16464 of 2021

ORDER:

The case of the petitioner is:-

1. The father of the petitioner had been granted a mining lease

over an extent of Ac.21.85 in Sy.No.47 of Pedda Ekkaluru Village, Pedda

Pappuru Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, for a period of 20 years, by way

of G.O.Ms.No.573 dated 12.05.1977. A consequential lease deed was

executed in September, 1977. Upon expiry of the initial lease, it was

renewed for a further period of 20 years by way of G.O.Ms.No.391 dated

21.07.2000. During the pendency of this lease, the father of the petitioner

died on 26.10.2013 and his mother was brought in as the successor

lessee, by virtue of the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated

24.11.2014 in proceedings No.94/M2/2000. Subsequently, the mother of

the petitioner also passed away on 05.12.2020. During her life time, the

mother of the petitioner, having come to know that steps were being

taken to grant the lease of this area to other persons, had given a

representations dated 22.11.2018 and 20.02.2019 to respondents 2 to 4,

opposing grant of mining lease to any other person. At that stage, a

representation is said to have been given for renewal of the lease. The

petitioners had, thereafter, sought to clear the arrears demanded by the

4th respondent by his demand notice No.94/M2/2003, dated 17.02.2020 to

the tune of Rs.4,08,397/-. However, the 4th respondent refused to receive

the arrears amount. Subsequently, the 1st respondent issued a memo

dated 01.12.2020 in the form of a show cause notice calling upon the

petitioner to show cause as to why the lease should not be determined on

13 grounds raised therein. This show cause notice was not received 2 RRR,J W.P.No.16464 of 2021

initially by the petitioners and later, having come to know of the said show

cause notice, representations were made. Subsequently, the 1st

respondent determined the mining lease given in favour of the petitioners

by way of G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 09.04.2021. At that stage, the petitioner

came to know that the 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 04.05.2021

had granted a quarry lease to the 5th respondent in relation to the quarry

lease given to the petitioner. The petitioner also states that having come

to know of the steps being taken for grant of quarry lease to the 5 th

respondent, a revision petition had been filed before the 1st respondent

against the grant of such quarry lease. The mother of the petitioner is

said to have given a formal renewal application in the proper format on

31.10.2020.

2. The 5th respondent is said to have been granted a quarry

lease by proceedings of the 2nd respondent on 04.05.2021 and

subsequently a lease deed was also executed in favour of the 5 th

respondent on 07.05.2021.

3. Aggrieved by the determination of the lease given in favour

of the family of the petitioner, the grant of quarry lease in favour of the

5th respondent and the execution of lease deed in favour of the 5th

respondent, the petitioner has approached this court by way of the

present writ petition.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for

renewal of the lease, which expired only in the year 2020. The non-

renewal of lease is clearly not in accordance with the Act and the Rules.

Further the application of the 5th respondent for grant of quarry lease,

which had obviously been filed during the pendency of the subsisting

lease in favour of the mother of the petitioner, is clearly not maintainable 3 RRR,J W.P.No.16464 of 2021

and no proceedings could have been initiated on the basis of such an

application. The petitioner had also raised an issue in the writ petition,

that one of the minerals for which the lease had been granted to the 5th

respondent, is a major mineral and as such the minor Mineral Concession

Rules would not apply to this case. However this contention has not been

pressed in the course of arguments before this Court and as such the said

contention is not being considered.

5. The 4th respondent contended that the lease of the

petitioner had expired on 01.11.2017 itself as G.O.Ms.No.391, dated

21.07.2000, which extended the lease for a subsequent period of 20

years, was with effect from 02.11.1997 itself. The 4th respondent also

took the stand that the quarry of the petitioner was not in operation since

2013 and as such the lease of the petitioner had terminated by 2015 itself

and the subsequent application of the 5th respondent is in accordance with

the rules.

6. On the question of the determination proposals, it is the

case of the 4th respondent that the said determination had taken place

after adequate opportunity had been given to the petitioner and there was

nothing wrong in the determination proceedings.

7. The 5th respondent had filed a counter affidavit. In this

counter affidavit, the 5th respondent states that the 5th respondent was

running a pulverization unit, which required a huge amount of minerals.

As the 5th respondent already had a quarry lease in the area, it had

applied for grant of quarry lease over the area in which the petitioner's

family was earlier carrying on quarrying activity. The application for such

quarry lease was filed by the 5th respondent on 22.11.2018. The 5th

respondent also took the stand that the lease of the petitioner had lapsed 4 RRR,J W.P.No.16464 of 2021

in the year 2015 as no quarrying activity was carried on in the said quarry

for more than two years after the demise of the father of the petitioner in

the year 2013.

8. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit, where he denied various

contentions raised by the respondents. However, the petitioner did admit

that the quarrying operations could not be carried on in the quarry after

the demise of his father in the year 2013.

9. In view of the aforesaid contentions, the question that

comes up before this Court is whether the quarry lease of the petitioner

had expired in the year 2015 on account of suspension of operation of

quarry lease from 2013 or whether the lease continued up to 01.11.2017

or whether it continued up to the year 2020.

10. Section 4A (4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and

Regulation) Act, 1957 as amended on 26.03.2015, reads as follows:

"4A. Termination of prospecting licences or mining leases. - (4). Where the holder of a mining lease fails to undertake mining operations for a period of two years after the date of execution of the lease or having commenced mining operations has discontinued the same for a period of two years, the lease shall lapse on the expiry of the period of two years from the date of execution of the lease or, as the case may be discontinuance of the mining operations: Provided that the State Government may, on an application made the holder of such lease before it lapses and on being satisfied that it will not be possible for the holder of the lease to undertake mining operations or to continue such operations for reasons beyond his control, make an order, within a period of three months from the date of receiving such application subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, to the effect that such lease shall not lapse.

                                           5                                  RRR,J
                                                              W.P.No.16464 of 2021

Provided further that such lease shall lapse on failure to undertake mining operations or inability to continue the same before the end of a period of six months from the date of the order of the State Government.

Provided also that the State Government may, on an application made by the holder of the lease submitted within a period of six months from the date of its lapse and on being satisfied that such non - commencement or discontinuance was due to reasons beyond the control of the holder of the lease, revive the lease within a period of three months from the date of receiving the application from such prospective or retrospective date as it thins fit but not earlier than the date of lapse of the lease."

11. The corresponding Rule under the Minerals (Other than

Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016, is

Rule 20, which reads as follows:

"20. Lapsing of mining lease. -

(1) Subject to the conditions of the rule where mining operations are not commenced within a period of two years from the date of execution of the mining lease, or is discontinued for a continuous period of two years after commencement of such operations, the mining lease shall lapse.

(2) The lapsing of a mining lease shall be recorded through an order issued to the State Government and shall also be communicated to the lesee.

(3) Where the lessee is unable to commence the mining operatiokns within a period of two years from the date of execution of the mining lease or discontinuation of mining operations for reasons beyond his control, he may submit an application to the State Government, explaining the reasons for the same, at least three months before the expiry of such period of two years. Provided where the lessee has failed to make the application within the time stipulated above, the lease shall lapse on expiry of the period of two years."

                                        6                                    RRR,J
                                                             W.P.No.16464 of 2021

12. A plain reading of Section 4A (4) read with Rule 20 would

reveal that any lease, where mining operations have been discontinued

for a period of more than two years shall lapse on the expiry and the

period of two years. There is no provision that the said lease would

require a formal termination by way of an order of the appropriate

authority in Section 4A. However Rule 20 provides that the lapsing of the

mineral lease should be recorded through an order issued to the State

Government and shall also be communicated to the lessee. In the present

case, it does not appear that an order recording such a lapse of the lease

has been passed or that such an order has been served on the petitioners.

13. A learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra

Pradesh had considered a similar situation on 13.07.2007 in

W.P.No.11152 of 2007. In this case an applicant hereinafter referred to as

the original lease holder was granted a lease and was called upon to

execute a lease deed after complying with all the formalities. As the

original lease holder failed to comply with the requirements and failed to

comply with the formalities, the grant of lease was revoked on

18.05.2006. The claimant had filed an application for the very same lease

on 03.12.2005 and was granted the lease. A rival claimant who had filed

an application for the same lease on 16.06.2006, contested the grant of

the lease to the claimant. The main contention in the litigation was that

the application of the claimant as premature as there was a subsisting

lease when the claimant filed his application. It was argued that even

though the time granted for execution expired on 17.01.2005, the order of

revocation was passed on 18.05.2006 and as such the area was not

available for a fresh application to be filed.

                                      7                                RRR,J
                                                       W.P.No.16464 of 2021

14. The learned Single Judge after considering the said issues

came to the conclusion that there would be an automatic lapse of the

lease and subsequent order of recording the said lapse would not extend

the period of lease and that the lease would have to be treated as having

lapsed on the initial date itself. A Writ Appeal was filed against this

judgment in W.A.No.760 of 2007. This writ appeal has been dismissed on

19.01.2022 by a Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana. It is

significant to note that in this case Rule 13 (1) of the rules required an

order of revocation of grant of lease to be passed.

15. In the present case, there is no requirement of an order of

revocation. At best an order recording the lapse has to be passed. This

requirement will not mean that the lapse of the quarry lease under

Section 4A (4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)

Act, 1957 will remain in limbo till the same is recorded by way of an order.

The absence of an order recording the lapse of the lease would not in any

manner detract from the fact that the lease has lapsed in the year 2015

itself. The question of the lease, continuing thereafter, would not arise.

The determination of the lease by the respondents, subsequently, on

other grounds, was a redundant exercise and would not make any

difference to the fact that the lease had already expired / lapsed.

16. Once it is held that the lease of the petitioner had expired in

the year 2015, the application made by the 5th respondent on 22.11.2018,

would be in accordance with the Rules and at an earlier point of time to

the application for renewal made by the mother of the petitioner in the

year 2020.

17. It is also stated across the bar that the 5th respondent has

already commenced operations in the quarry area.

                                      8                                RRR,J
                                                       W.P.No.16464 of 2021

18. For all the aforesaid reasons, it must be held that the quarry

lease granted to the family of the petitioner had lapsed in the year 2015

itself and all the subsequent proceedings can only be treated as

redundant proceedings which would not affect the lapse of the lease.

19. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

shall stand, closed.

_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

5th May, 2022 Js.

                          9                           RRR,J
                                      W.P.No.16464 of 2021




      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO




               W.P.No.16464 of 2021




                   5th May, 2022
Js.