1 Hi THE i-IIGH court? 0? i(ARi'~iA"§'AKA AT $Af~iGfiaLORE i)ATEl} THIS THE 1*" DAY or m'1'0BrR. 2009 PRESENT "ms HON'Bi.£ Ma. ma. 9ENAKARAR, CHIEF JUSYICE AND THE I-iGi\i'Si..E Pi'R.JUSYICE MGHAN SHANTARAGWDAR Between : E~¥.M. Suresh S/0 HA... Mahadevappa Aged about 36 years Resident cf iiosur Viiiage Post: Davarasanahaiii Taiuk: Nanjanagudu, District: Mysore ."Pefifioner (By Sri Basavaraj R. Eannur for MES, Bannur Asseciates, Advocates) Ana: 1.
The State 0? iéamataka
by its Seicretary
Revenue Department
M.S. Buiiaing, Bangaiore M Q:
2. The fieputy Commissioner
Mysore District, Mysare
3. The Senior Geoiogist
aepartrnent of Mines and Geaiegy
fififiélf Saganachumbijcdi Rated
Kuvempuangara, My:-mre
miles pond eats
(by Sri Basavaraj Kareédy, GA)
3
3. The issue involved in this petition is simiiar to the
one raised and considereo by a Division Bench of this Court in
the case of M. KOKZLA V. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTRERS in Writ Appeai No.972 of 2006 disposed of on 2″‘ April,
2009. Whiie dismissing the above writ appeal, the Division
Bench has observed as hereunder:
“S. Patta lands are agricultural lands. In such
lands agricultural operations have to be canried out. As
per Section 2(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
1961 “agriculture” includes aquaculture; horticulture,
raising of crops, grass or garden produce, dairy farming,
poultry farming, breeding of livestock and grazing. It
does not include mining or quarrying. In View of
availability of minor minerals in patta lands, quarrying
operations are being carried on. It amounts to change of
land use fiom agrfculturaf pmpose to nomagrzicuitural
purpose. Since it involves diversion of agricultural iancl to
non-agricultural puijooso, conversion is nocfity under
Section 95(2) of the Act, which ready-
“95(.2) If any occupant of land
assessed or held for the purpose of
agriculture wishes to divert such land or any
part thereof to any other purpose he shall’
noiwitiistan-ding anything contained in any
few for tire time being in force apply for
permission to the Deputy Commissioner who
may, subject to the provisions of this Section
4
and the rates made thereunder this Act,
refiise permission or grant it on such
conditions as he may think fit. “‘
In View of this specific provision, the Deputy
Commissioner was justified in issuing the endorsements
impugned in the writ petitions and the learned single
Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petitions holding that
conversion is necessary to use the patta lands for
extracting minor mineral from them. We are in fully
agreement with the View taken by the learned single
Judge and the order passed by him dew not warrant
interference by tile Court in exercise of this Court’s
Appellate Junsdiction and power.
6. We may also ado’ that for doing agricultural
operations, no conversion, licence or permit is required
whereas for canying on mining operations to extract
minor mineral, conversion under Section 95 of the Act,
licence defined under Section 2(l<) and for their
transportation permit defined under Section 2(a) of
Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 are
required. Therefore, the appeilant–writ petitioners cannot
do mining operations without conversion order, licence
and permit. Consequentiy, the decision in Veeramadinfs
case has no application and reliance placed on it is mis-
placed and legal contention urged by the learned Senior
Counsei placing reliance upon the said decision is wholly
untenabk in law.
S
2. Further we are in respectfu! agreement with the
findings and reasons recorded by the teamed single judge
on the contentious points raised in the writ petition, which
are answered against the Appellant in the impugned
Judgment, after refiernng to the to the rivet Iegai
contentions, provisiens of the KLR Act and decisions of
the Apex Court and this Cou .”
8. For the reasons stated above, the writ appeal is
devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.”
4. We are in respectful agreement with the views
expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal
No.972 of 2006 referred to above. Accordingly, foiiowing the
said judgment, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sol/~
Chief Iusticé
Sd/-
JUDGE
Index: YES] N9
X
Web host: YES,’ NO
inn