JUDGMENT Appellant is before us challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2563 of 2002, dated 28-5-2003 (M/s. Shilpi Granites Exporters, Bangalore v State of Karnataka and Others1) in this appeal. 2. Facts as narrated in the appeal are as under: Appellant/respondent acquired a quarrying lease at Sy. No. 40 measuring 15 acres at Guggalamari Village, Hungund Taluk, Bijapur District now in Bagalkot District for a valuable bid amount of Rs. 29,05,000/-. The demarcated area contained only one acre of granite and the remaining 14 acres contained no granite at all. Hence the appellant sought for grant of alternate land by way of filing W.P. No. 17802 of 1997. The same was disposed of by this Court in terms of an order dated 27-11-1997. Thereafter, the Government identified the land and granted quarrying lease No. 144 for a period of 5 years with effect from 24-12-1997 at Guggalamari Village. Even that granite was unsuitable for ornamental stone purposes and revealed that it was fractured in nature. Appellant sustained financial loss and gave a Representation seeking for quarrying lease at Sy. No. 60 of Hanandanahalli Village, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District to an extent of 10 acres and also for seeking transfer of the lease in favour of the appellant. The same was considered and lease was granted in terms of an order dated 25-4-2001. Thereafter the first respondent filed a Writ Petition No. 2563 of 2002 seeking to quash the quarrying lease granted by the authorities in favour of the appellant. Matter was contested. After contest, learned Single Judge has chosen to pass the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, appellant is before us. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant would argue that learned Single Judge has committed serious error in his order. He says that Rule 8-B of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, would come to his rescue on the facts of this case. He would also explain to us that in the light of the suffering of the appellant, the Government has chosen to consider the case of the appellant in the light of an order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 17802 of 1997. He would say that the grant is in accordance with law in the light of Rule 8-B of the Rules - the overriding provision, on the facts of this case. He would say that the grant is in accordance with law in the light of Rule 8-B of the Rules - the overriding provision, on the facts of this case. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent would oppose the same. 4. After hearing, we have carefully perused the material on record. 5. Admitted facts would reveal that the first respondent filed an application for grant of quarrying lease in respect of 15 acres of land Sy, No. 60 of Hanandanahalli Village, Malavalli Taluk. The said application stood rejected by an order dated 17-9-1998 on the ground that the said land forms part of gomal. The said order was challenged by the first respondent in W.P. No. 34901 of 2000. The said petition was allowed and the matter was sent for reconsideration in terms of an order dated 7-11-2000. After remand, the application was processed a11d the revenue authorities after investigation and conducting necessary spot inspection had recommended for the grant of lease. Thereafter, first respondent filed W.P. No. 2563 of 2002 challenging the grant of quarrying lease in favour of the appellant vide notification dated 25-4-2001 and also for quashing the lease book dated 22-11-2001 issued by the second respondent in favour of the appellant. During the pendency of W.P. No. 2563 of 2002 petition, the first respondent's request for quarrying lease was rejected in terms of an order dated 4-6-2001. That was also challenged by the first respondent in the very petition filed by him. Objections were filed and thereafter the learned Single judge has chosen to allow the writ petition, in the light of no power to the Government with regard to granting of alternative land in terms of his order. 6. In the light of the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, we have seen Rule 8-B of the Rules. Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. Rule 3(2) of the Rules provides that no quarrying lease or licence or quarrying permit licence shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with these rules. Rule 8-B of the Rules provides for notification in the matter. A detailed procedure has been prescribed with regard to consideration of the grant of lease or licence or quarrying permit. Rule 11 would provide for recommendation of the committee. Rule 8-B of the Rules provides for notification in the matter. A detailed procedure has been prescribed with regard to consideration of the grant of lease or licence or quarrying permit. Rule 11 would provide for recommendation of the committee. 'I'here after in the light of the recommendation of the committee, Government has to grant the lease. In the case on hand, from the material on record it is seen that Annexure-A is issued pursuant to the procedure prescribed under the Act. In the notification, Annexure-A, it is stated that sanction is accorded for grant of quarry lease for quarrying black granite for five years to M/s. S.N.G. Exporters over an extent of 10 acres Government land in Sy. No. 60 of HanandanahalJi, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District in lieu of TCA area of Sri Durgappa Satyappa Bondi (QL No. 144/97). It is also subject to certain conditions. Condition 2(a) would refer to black granite minor mineral Sri Durgappa Satyappa Bondi had filed an application as mentioned earlier for grant of quarrying lease in respect of 15 acres in Sy. No. 40 of Guggalamari Village, Hungund Taluk, Bagalkot for pink granite. While conducting mining operations, the lease found that the land did not contain any pink granite and as such he made an application for grant of alternative land to an extent of. 10 acres in Sy. No. 60 of Hanandanahalli. He also made an application for transfer of the lease in favour of the appellant. In the light of this request, Annexure-A was issued. Admittedly it is dated 25-4-2001. On the said date, the lease was not transferred in favour of the appellant. 7. At this stage, we must also notice that W.P. No. 17802 of 1997 was filed by Sri Durgappa Satyappa Bondi seeking for a direction with regard to alternative land in the matter of pink granite. This Court on noticing the submission of the petitioner that he had no objection for identifying an alternative land in the said survey number by joint inspection. This Court also noticed the sketch showing the demarcated five acres of land. This Court on noticing the submission of the petitioner that he had no objection for identifying an alternative land in the said survey number by joint inspection. This Court also noticed the sketch showing the demarcated five acres of land. Thereafter, after noticing the submission of the petitioner that he is willing to 5 acres of land now marked in lieu of the 5 acres out of 15 acres which was earlier granted to him, the said petition was disposed of with a direction that the authorities shall deliver the area identified by joint inspection to the petitioner and that the petitioner shall surrender 5 acres from out of the original 15 acres of land within one month from 27-11-1997. In terms of the said order, it is seen that neither the Sri Durgappa Satyappa Bondi surrendered the five acres of land nor the respondents delivered the land. Therefore, we are of the view that this order cannot form the basis for Annexure-A. Material on record would also reveal that Sri Durgappa Satyappa Bondi after expiry of the terms, in terms of the order in W.P. No. 17802 of 1997, has chosen to make a representation only on 1-3-2001 and he had also sought for transfer of the lease in favour of S.N.G. Exporters-appellant in the case on hand. 8. At this stage, we must also notice Rule 8-B which is pressed into service by the appellant. Rule 8-B would provide for notifying the area for grant of lease by tender-cum-auction. Rule 8-B no doubt provides for grant of quarrying lease to quarry specified or non-specified minor mineral in any area belonging to the State Government and available for grant, as may be specified in such notification, shall be granted by tender-cum-auction notwithstanding anything contained in this Rule. The appellants argued that in the light of Rule 8-B, the violation of Rule S-A gets diluted or nullified. Appellant relies on Union of India and Another v G.M. Kokil and Others and Arul Nadar v Authorised Officer, Land Reforms2 with regard to overriding powers. There can be no quarrel over this proposition. But what cannot be forgotten is the claim of the respondent in the matter of grant of a lease in favour of an applicant. Appellant relies on Union of India and Another v G.M. Kokil and Others and Arul Nadar v Authorised Officer, Land Reforms2 with regard to overriding powers. There can be no quarrel over this proposition. But what cannot be forgotten is the claim of the respondent in the matter of grant of a lease in favour of an applicant. This very question has been considered by this Court in somewhat identical circumstances, in Tam Tam Pedda Guruva Reddy v State of Karnataka and Another3• In the said case, learned Single Judge considered a similar question and also Rule 8-B and thereafter he has chosen to hold that only remedy available to the lessee would be seeking for compensation or in the alternative to repudiate contract of lease. This Court also ruled that the authorities while contracting should always contemplate its performance rather than its breach and it should not enter into a kind of contract to pay damages. This aspect has been noticed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2653 of 2002 for the purpose of accepting the petition filed by the first respondent in the case on hand. We are in agreement with the judgment in Tam Tam Pedda Guruva Reddy's case. We are also in agreement with the learned Single Judge in the case on hand that the only remedy if at all is for compensation and not for alternative land. Learned Single Judge is fully justified in accepting the case of the first respondent. In the light of these aspects of the matter, Rule 8-B would be of no assistance to a case of this nature. The facts of the case and in the given circumstances do not attract Rule 8-B of the Rules. Even otherwise, we have seen that the Government has violated the law as applicable to a given situation in terms of the findings of the learned Single Judge which we have accepted in this appeal. Looking from any angle, no case is made out by the appellant for our interference in the case on hand. 9. Learned Counsel for the first respondent places before us judgments of Supreme Court in South Eastern Coalfields Limited v State of Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka Rare Earth and Another v Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology and Another2, with regard to reimbursements in such cases to the State Government. 9. Learned Counsel for the first respondent places before us judgments of Supreme Court in South Eastern Coalfields Limited v State of Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka Rare Earth and Another v Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology and Another2, with regard to reimbursements in such cases to the State Government. We do not want to express any opinion with regard to that aspect of the matter in the absence of any reference to this aspect of the matter in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, liberty is reserved to the State to act in accordance with law in the light of these two judgments in the larger interest of saving State revenue, of course, after following the prescribed procedure in accordance with law. 10. Appeal stands dismissed with the above observations. No costs.