Case: Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Ors Vs. Obulapuram Mining Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. etc

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 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 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." 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 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. 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]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.