High Court Karnataka High Court

The State Of Karnataka vs Dr Siddamallikarjuna Swamy on 15 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Dr Siddamallikarjuna Swamy on 15 July, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
I

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE"-E

DATED THIS THE 15"' DAY or mm 2009  

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DI:\:AKARA:st';"ci»:1ELr-7   

AND V

THE HON'Bi.E MR.JUSTIV(:E.::\"i.G. Sixal.-I:?.';l-:I_'I_:TVV"~----: "' 

wan APPEAL NQ_.;§_;7/;':_§0'_.7-- (QM-MM+'3 

Between:

1. The State ofKarf_I'a'i113'9:;3I;::--;a'¢   

Rep. By   
Department of' Revenue', _  

M.S. Building, «Ambeci'kEI~r_Veek::».!§'i,--~
Bangalore -- '360A O0i*._  

23;' " E}/A916 Dve.:|f:i:ut;f,¢A .:Com m iseiofi e 3*,
gMys'or_e Distrjct,"Mvysore.

 3. The_Se_nEor'?3'e.ologis't,

 Department .of5iEf4io"r1es & Geology,
No.4, Gaganachumbi Jodi Road,

 Kgvempunagar, Mysore-23

 ?*f§'eAAVTéh~silda r,

'T. Nara-sipura Taluk,

 _fMys'ore District. .. APPELLANTS

'V  Basavaraj Karreddy -- PrI.Govt.Adv. for Applts.)



And:

Dr. Siddamallikarjuna Swamy,

S/0. Late Channa Basappa,

Aged about 67 years,

R/at. Hastikerirnath,

Haiebeedi, Talakadu,   
T. Narasipura Taluk, 1

Mysore District.   

(By Sri. M,K. Suresh Kumar -- Adv. f'or:R.espt.)"  A

This Writ Appeal is filed, under,.S.e:ctio'ri--~.,f4 of' th-e..,Ka.::'§nataka
High Court Act to set __ 'aside _the,_ .,order passed in
W.P.No.2481/2006 dated 27.02.'2,0.06_._  A} V'  A 

This Writ Appeai_r'is,_.com'th"g'tip Vfo.r:'s.prel'§m.ir".rary hearing on
this day, the Court del'E»;r;ered the fc!lowE~n,g:--.--' V. 

'''' "    2 

 

£')eli\Vre-reds.»~0E*nakaran, CJ.)
The ,Appella"nts--St,ateAlhaiie preferred this Writ Appeal
a.;:j,iaIr:st ti'l.I€5":'OE:€i:el'~v..Qf thne"i'ea'rned single judge dated 27.02.2006

made wherein the learned single Judge

jiadvisposed ofétheiwriit petition holding that in respect of patta land,

 necessary for the respondent/petitioner to obtain the

‘._’co.nvers,iVon”~«_.order under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land

Act, with a direction to the Appellants/respondents to

VVJf–w.co”ns.ider the application of the respondent/petitioner for grant of

4

being in force apply for permission to the
Deputy Commissioner who may, subject to
the provisions of this Section and the rules
made thereunder this Act, refuse permission .
or grant it on such conditions as he may_:’3
think fit. ” ”

In view of this specific prox;’ision,uth’e Deputy

Commissioner was justified in issuing:”:.thefendorsementsV

impugned in the writ petitionssand the learnedsingilet

Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petitions –.hoiding that it

conversion is necessary to US6_’….tV:fi’8_”fi1.-fitfa lands
extracting minor mineralqf”rom –«M/;e”«.are in fully
agreement with the view’ta.keni»éarned single
Judge and the order passed Vhim.._do.és warrant
interference by ‘Court iin””xexercise’ “:2-fwithis Court’s
Appellate Jurfisdict–.ion”and pay-,«§’r;– ‘ ‘

6. We may V V”add-.__ti:-at for doing agricultural
operationsy no conve,rsion,”-.lice.-ice or permit is required
whereas for”-«carrying on ‘mining operations to extract

minoif mineral, conversion under Section 95 of the Act,

r Jicehce idefined under’ Section 2(l<) and for their

Wanspoitationi. ipermit defined under Section 2(h) of

hkarnagtaka.'"'_Minor".Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 are

ret;uired._.~ Therefore, the appellant–writ petitioners cannot

do mininhg: operations without conversion order, licence

Vandpermit. Consequently, the decision in Veeramadhu's

'' case has no application and reliance placed on it is mis~

' placed and legal contention urged by the learned Senior

V' "Counsel placing reliance upon the said decision is wholly

it untenable in law.

5

7. Further we are in respectful agreement with the
findings and reasons recorded by the learned single judge. _ ”

on the contentious points raised in the writ petition, wh’:’ch’ » it

are answered against the Appellant in the impugned-,
Judgment, after referring to the to… the ri\}al””;’e§:al”” ‘

contentions, provisions of the KLR Apt and f

the Apex Court and this Court.” V

8. For the reasons stated abo”ve;”*ithe writ_V app’:3al”.ls”
devoid of merit and liable to be dismisseofl ” 1

4. We are in respectful agreeam’e:’1t’wif:ii::’th’e=§’ii<=gwsVexpressed by

this Court in Writ: App":-zai NioV{§72g1of:' '2:GQ6V'-referred to above.

Accordingfy, fo!lQs,*ii'i§*1vr_:__ sa:i:d__:ju_cig.ment,V writ Appeal is

disposed of.

vV’7’Ipdex:

Sd/-~
Chief justice

sd/-§__
Judge

Yes”) ”

4: ijaost := yes NO

V Mskf’