9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of Rule 12(4) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966; Validity of lease grant to fourth and fifth respondents; Timeliness of applications filed by the appellant and fifth respondent.
In this case, the main issue revolves around the interpretation of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 12 of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The dispute arises from the lease applications for Survey No. 650/1 Palukar Village in Kurnool District. The previous lessee's lease was expiring, and various parties, including the appellant and the fifth respondent, applied for the lease of different portions of the land. The timeline of these applications and their validity in accordance with the rules is crucial to determine the rightful grantee of the lease. The judgment delves into the relevant rules, specifically Rule 12(4) and Rule 13 of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, which govern the grant and renewal of quarry leases. The court emphasizes the importance of the word "within" in Rule 12(4) and its impact on the interpretation of the rules. It clarifies the categorization of lease applications into three categories based on timing and preference criteria, highlighting the sequence in which applications should be considered and disposed of based on the rules' provisions. The court analyzes the facts of the case in light of the rules and categorization explained earlier. It determines that the withdrawal of the previous lessee's renewal application cleared the way for considering second category applications, leading to the grant of the lease to the fourth respondent for 18 acres. However, the remaining 22 acres necessitated the consideration of third category applications, including the one filed by the appellant. The court concludes that the rejection of the appellant's application as time-barred was incorrect, placing it in the same category as the fifth respondent's application. Furthermore, the judgment addresses the preference criteria between the appellant and the fifth respondent for the remaining lease area. It highlights reasons favoring the fifth respondent, such as community composition and lease area size, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal. The court decides not to remit the matter back to the authorities due to elapsed time and provides reasoning for preferring the fifth respondent over the appellant based on various factors outlined in the judgment. In conclusion, the court dismisses the appeal, emphasizing the entitlement of the fifth respondent to preference for the remaining lease area based on valid reasons discussed in the judgment. The decision provides a comprehensive analysis of the issues surrounding the interpretation of the rules and the validity of lease applications, ensuring a fair and reasoned resolution of the dispute.
|
