H G Sudhakara vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 June, 2009

  S_HvIh!§)'GA msrmcr. .... ..APiiELLAN'I'

 {_B'5&__Sii':' 85 KUMAR )%

"--  DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

IN THE man comm ms' KARNATAKA AT BA2~1r3A;.i)__ré£~, ~ 

DATED THIS THE 24th DAY or» JUN?)   ' 1% '  '

PRESENT'
THE HON'BLE MR. P. D. DINAKARAf€,_ "c:H1I§é1;§.'%§5tJ%s'r:{:'%E~ »  '

THE H()N'BLE p4R.Jus'r:€:E V'.-»G.SAfiHAH}*iE'

1 H G SUQHAKARA 
3/ o'.G:Db;s:iwwDA.TA - ' '
AG«E{)~ ABOVUT.jv4-5"{EFxR*S,
R] 0 ;;1osAI-';ALL1 =B1i_3ARAHALLI
_HASA(§A_DE..F'OST, 
,,  AGUMBE HQBLI ,,
 "*T;5i1RTHAHALLi"*'rALUK,

AND. :

AA ; '»,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

M. S. BUIDLING,
BANGALOTREE 1

2 THE DIRECFOR OF
MINES ANS GEOLDGY
KI-IANIJA BHAVAN,



scale unit under the name and style "Sri  * V. 

Unit" and the pctitioner made an:=,appfi§§giiidn 

the above said quarrying lea<s::__as    

lease within the stipuiatead  the   has
been zenewcd by the '  ~-for  of five
years and petitioner  licence to the
third Iesponn  No.3 Without
applicatiofi   following the procedure
      Concession Rulss
rc1ec11a£ij:§111yViss:1'i'e.»iijV':§fitE;(§ffa;2ment on the very same day Le.

23.2.2007 gtafing the area whextin the petitioner is

 V'  _   lease is coming under gomal

    the circular dated 5.1.2oo7;1o.4.2oo7, no

  kiaade and as such, the quarrying lease No.439

 of the~p »é§i*£1ioncr cannot be mun-wed for a further period. It is

    avermed that in W.A.Noa.1353/2006 and 3313/2005

 {Strict dated 18.1 1.2006, the Deputy Commissioncrs in

V Huihe State were directed to iclentifjr all firm gomal and other

ivesezved iands to cxsnsider whether their extent have to be

K/%

 



I 6

the Writ petition. Being aggrieved by the saidVT«:)11icr
dismissing the wzit petition dated 12.2.2009, 
has pmferred this appeal. There is delay of  'A 
the appeal and having regard to théllavcrgnlfintfig V
affidavit filed in support or the  
condoned by scparatfi order. ll   T'    '

4. We have hea;rt1~._the  'appéamg for

the appellant and    Advocate

appcaringlllbr the  3. '

5._ . Lcmaiéfl caiinékzl lA"'z§ppca1'ing for the appellant

 ithlat--- the  Single Judge has proceeded on

   Icasfltl   in favour of the petitioner is not a
 ,g.~..;;aa;   it is a revenue land and the respondent

hllve come to the conclusion that the said land is a
and even if it is a gomal land it is for the Deputy

‘V V _ léfiohllzmissioncr to identify and diver the land for other

Ilégased area in mspect of which quanying

purposes b9;S{2(i on the cattle population in the said area and

R/1

:.I:1z.£:-‘:$i; Ye;/No

Host: Ycxzj/£50

10

(Mining), Department of Mines and Geology, ‘for
passing fresh orders on the application ‘
quarxying lease No.439. Th: u
orders on the application for
pefition by evaluating the V£a§.1:£)ii(;ati-:A>.i1and””

strictly in accordance:

Sdf-

Clrzief Iustice

….. Sd/’I
JUDGE

,/
r