A Narendra Raj vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 September, 2008

HIGH COURY OF KARNATAKA HiGH bQ'£}1:IfRT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAXA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA H36?! COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C

IN THE HIGH comm' OE' KAENATAEA, 

DATED THIS THE 10'?" DAY;

EE EOEI;  I 

THE HOIWBLE1 MR. Jus'I?1;:{:I.:V DA;"IIv.S.%{Y1E;EN:I3'RP«...

WRIT PETI'I'Z_ON NoA,.I"és'E.9'2=,/u2oOS'*c(rim---M§?:/s}

BETWEEN

SRI. A  '    
s/0 SR1 AE}E'1jz}IIj2:IEnEPA  '
AGED ABO_U.T...I,4_A2"~.f£EZéE§,_ _' 
R./':,»'*1S.v 'am As3Qc;I_gk:IEs, Awe. )

I '_E'HE srpfisr E, 0?

--REpI"EY ITS SECRETARY

; ' ~ . REVENUE " :)E3~9AET1vENr,

I  VEEDHI
 r%1m,;:*.I_ STORIES EJILDING
--E'AN3AI.ORE: 560 001

 "--4:f:~E'E>i;'1:"::' cc:IvMssIom::*.R
I.: ANPBAR DISPRICT

 ANH3AR



.. ..-. . wvunl V: nnmw-unxu-5 l"fiu*l'1' l'.A..|L.!'.:!-:.|i(l' OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C

3399?? DERECTOR J.
DEPARTMENT OF MINES *q© e3wL@;Mj
CHAMRRAJANAGRR fiES?RICT --~

(41

CHAMRRAJANAGAR ... Hflégsépmézmws V

{BY gm? SAROJENE MUTHAmNA;,A®A'§T=

THIS "R1? ?ET1?:§u IS EI:E§+fimafiRVéR?:cLa
326 AND 22? 03 was .CQNSTITU?EQ§ O03 ENDIA
9RA::NG T0 QUAsH*y:D§ Amxgggmissuam BY R3.

?HES _-wR:@>""Ei.:T:Q&O:xéawiws om FOR
?RELIM£NARr,HEAR:N§ ?a:$ Sfif, THE COURT PASSES
THE FQLLOWIN§;'vO_*_ .~'.

f"[fo R b"fi R

§ntitiéné:'pO;claiminq to be an

agxicultufigt, Vit appears had sought fiat

'*Ca:ryim§w0n the activiiy of naming, such as

= fiuarxfing granite from his aqriculturai land

ahd it appears, has also sought far permission

"tQ tfansport the extracted minerai etc.,

1.

The officiais of the Department cf

Mines and Geoicgy W the Ffl reabondent, having

5.

— ‘*” ‘W ~w–tr—u-rw – Ilia: I ‘lunllurlll III” !\BKl’I\IJ”II\lI\ TH’-‘I’7« Egg”! U? IAKNAIAIA C

*9:

4″ Failawing’ the aariiez view taken. by

{ha Eingla judge af this Smart, thi$M Wti£gW

§atiti$n ig filfifi fiiamisseé. It is apefi t¢fth&’ ‘