ORDER
N. Kumar, J.
1. W.P. No. 5467 of 2003 is filed by M/s. Bharath Timber and Construction Company, against the State as well as against Mr. Manjunatha Overseas Granites Limited, whereas W.P. No. 27874 of 2003 is filed by one Sri N.K. Shashidhar against State as well as Mr. Manjunatha Overseas Granites Limited.
2. In W.P. No. 5467 of 2003, the petitioner’s grievance is he is entitled to 112.26 acres of land in Sy. No. 296/1B/1 out of which he has purchased 66 acres under a registered sale deed and the remaining extent, he is holding under a lease. When the Government declared that the entire extent of land vested with the Government under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act, the same was challenged upto the Supreme Court and it was held that it is open to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of his rights and accordingly, he has filed a suit before a competent Civil Court for declaration of his rights and accordingly, he has filed a suit before a competent Civil Court in O.S. No. 110 of 1996 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bagalkot and in the said proceedings, a temporary injunction has been granted in his favour. When things stood thus, the respondent-Government has granted an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas and 3 acres in the aforesaid Sy. No. in favour of 3rd respondent-Company and therefore, they have sought for quashing of the said lease in favour of the 3rd respondent and the notification granting lease in favour of the 3rd respondent. The said land was granted to the 3rd respondent under two notifications dated 8-10-2002 as per Annexures-K and K1.
3. The 3rd respondent-Company have filed a detailed counter-substantiating their stand. According to them, the land granted to them does not form a part of the land which the petitioner is claiming and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance so far as the said grant is concerned.
4. The petitioner in W.P. No. 27874 of 2003 has also challenged one out of the two notifications, 3 acres of land was granted in favour of M/s. Manjunatha Overseas Granites Limited, on the ground that his application for grant is pending consideration and without considering his request and without notice to him, the said grant has been made.
5. It is not in dispute between the parties that in an earlier proceedings before this Court in W.P. No. 7987 of 2002 connected with W.P. No. 13535 of 2002, this Court had issued a direction to the Director of Mines and Geology to consider the claims of all the applicants in accordance with law by holding a common enquiry and after giving notice to all the parties and providing opportunity to them to place all the materials as they wish to do and hearing them. The Government was a party to the aforesaid writ petitions. In pursuance to the direction issued, the Director of Mines and Geology held an enquiry but even before the enquiry was concluded, the impugned notifications came to be issued without considering the claim of the petitioners.
6. Insofar as the petitioner in W.P. No. 5467 of 2002 is concerned, his application made in 1994 for grant of lease came to be rejected. When he made a request for grant, the authorities issued him a show-cause notice calling upon him to show cause why, because of the pendency of the civil suit, his request should not be rejected which was duly replied by the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that when the suit between the parties, the enquiry to be conducted in pursuance of the order of this Court were pending and before the conclusion of the suit and the enquiry, the impugned notifications came to be issued without hearing the petitioners. After the filing of these writ petitions, when the Government became aware of the mistake committed by them in issuing the impugned notifications, they kept them in abeyance. Now, the matter is heard at length and at that juncture when it was pointed out to the learned Government Advocate when these notifications are issued in violation of the terms of the order passed and keeping the said notifications in abeyance, would not satisfy the legal requirement, he took time to consider whether the notifications could be withdrawn. Accordingly, today he has filed a memo enclosing the notification dated 8-7-2003 bearing No. CI 322 MMN 1997 which reads as under:
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, Government had sanctioned two quarry licences over an area of 3-00 acres and 1.20 acres in Sy. No. 296/1B/1 of Balkundi Village, Hungunda Taluk in favour of M/s. Manjunatha Overseas Granites Limited vide two Government Notification Nos. CI 322 MMN 97, dated 8-10-2002 imposing certain conditions.
Whereas, in W.P. No. 27874 of 2003 this notification has been questioned on the ground that the same have been issued when the Common Enquiry ordered in W.P. No. 7987 of 2002 on 28-8-2002 was pending.
Whereas, the Government stayed further action consequent to the said two notifications vide Government letter dated 10-10-2002 until the common enquiry is completed.
Now that, the Government after careful examination of the contents of the W.P. No. 27874 of 2003, hereby withdraws the two notification Nos. CI 322 MMN 97, dated 8-10-2002 (related to 3.00 acres and 1.20 acres).
In view of the fact that the impugned notifications in the writ petitions are now withdrawn by the Government, the question of quashing the same in these proceedings would not arise. Therefore, in view of the withdrawal of the impugned notifications, these writ petitions are dismissed as having become infructous.
7. However, liberty is given to all the parties to appear before the Director of Mines and Geology to put forth their respective claims. The State and the authorities shall consider each one of the claims in accordance with law and on merits without, in any way being influenced by this order and pass appropriate orders. It is made clear that the authorities shall not commit the same mistake over again. They shall send notice to all the claimants who are requesting for grant of lease and after giving them a reasonable opportunity and after hearing the and conducting a de novo common enquiry, may proceed to pass appropriate order. All the contentions which are agitated before this Court are left open to be agitated before the authority.
8. The learned Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.