REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C)NOS.7366-7367 OF 2010  Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.  ....Petitioners   

Versus M/s. Obulapuram Mining  Co. Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. Etc.  ...Respondents

O R D E R

1. Determination  of  right  to  mining  iron  ore,  a  natural  resource,  has  reached  this  Court  in  second  round  of  litigation.   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  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 SLP(C)Nos.35169-35170 of 2009 titled  Government  of  Andhra  Pradesh  &  Ors. Vs.  M/s  Obulapurm  Mining Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on the ground that no case was

SLP(C)Nos. 7366-7367 of 2010  …. (contd.)  2

made  out  by  respondent  No.1-Company  for  grant  of  injunction, against those orders challenged in the writ  petition and therefore, those interim orders passed by the  Division Bench of the High Court be vacated and till the  pendency of the Special Leave Petitions in this Court, they  be stayed.

2. Those matters had come up for hearing before this 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, 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, 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 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

SLP(C)Nos. 7366-7367 of 2010  …. (contd.)  3

C.E.C. who is made as one of the respondents 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  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.   Consequently,  Special  Leave  Petition (C)Nos. 1301/2010 and 1379/2010 are also  disposed of.  No costs.  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.”

  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  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  hearing before the Bench on 11.3.2010.  On the said date,  the following Order came to be passed:

SLP(C)Nos. 7366-7367 of 2010  …. (contd.)  4

“ List on 22.3.2010.         Status quo shall be maintained till then.”

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 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 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  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 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  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.

SLP(C)Nos. 7366-7367 of 2010  …. (contd.)  5

The  team  shall  meet  on  26.3.2010  and  start  measurement work soon thereafter on day-to-day  basis.  There shall be 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 9.4.2010.”

7. 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:

“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. 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  clearly  mentioned  on  sketches.

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  topographical map. But it has to be verified  by  the  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.

4) There  should  be  no  mining  operation  during

SLP(C)Nos. 7366-7367 of 2010  …. (contd.)  6

survey work.  Once the above requirements for initiation  of surveying and demarcation work is fulfilled,  Survey of India 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  date,  instead,  was  filed  subsequently  on  30.4.2010, alongwith Annexures. While submitting the Final  Report, Committee made the following recommendations:

“(3)Recommendations: (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  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 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  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.”  

SLP(C)Nos. 7366-7367 of 2010  …. (contd.)  7

9. In the light of the aforesaid 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.

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 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 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 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  contended before us that the final Report filed by Survey

SLP(C)Nos. 7366-7367 of 2010  …. (contd.)  8

of India would reveal that respondent No.1-Company cannot  be blamed at all as it has neither 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 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 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 4.5.2010  (Annexure 'A') which shall form part of this order.  It was  also submitted by 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 disputed areas  till final demarcation of boundaries is completed.

SLP(C)Nos. 7366-7367 of 2010  …. (contd.)  9

13. On  the  submissions  as  having  been  advanced  by  learned  counsel for parties, we have given our serious thought and  deliberations  to  the  same.   In  our  considered  opinion,  respondent No.1-Company can be allowed to start the mining  operation only with regard 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 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 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  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

SLP(C)Nos. 7366-7367 of 2010  …. (contd.)  10

(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 case 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 would put a barbed wire  fencing of 10' high throughout Karnataka border.

15. The Committee constituted vide order dated 22.3.2010 passed  by this Court would continue to earmark the 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 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  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 directions, if  need, so arises. With the aforesaid directions, the interim

SLP(C)Nos. 7366-7367 of 2010  …. (contd.)  11

order passed by this Court on 11.3.2010 and extended from  time to time 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  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 No.1.

20.Special  Leave  Petitions  be  listed  for  hearing  in  due  course.

.......................CJI  [K.G. Balakrishnan]

.................... ...J.                                 

[Deepak Verma]

New Delhi.      .......................J. May 10, 2010 [B.S. Chauhan]