Balaram Vittal Sambrekar vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 January, 2010

IN "FI'"iE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT IBANGALDRE

Dated: 6th day of Jamiary    

Present 

Hon'b1e Mr.JUSTICE V._G.OPAIJ&'COWfI)}\  

And
H0n'b1e Mr.JUS'I;'E-@133._A.$'.V'BQPAN.NA;VV""" 

WRIT PETITIQQI No.'1e2'O::6f1 /200 7 fGM~M1EkI/S)

Between:

Balaram Vittai Sa;§11b r<:ka1r;_    V'   »
Since deceasaeci by       

'1.

Pawan Ba]araVmi:.S§mbr?ekéi15}e' ..  V' 3.
S / 0. Late; 'E:'5'al.2;r'3_n1 Vjtf.a1' --Sambr"ekar,

Aged ab?put;_3_O' 'yvS/ t_.e'v«Ba',azja11'a Vittal Sambrekar,

A§_§§3C1._c1bO'L1:{' .26»  eélrs.

 ._ Pe1ra$*1*111r.:i.fnv ifialaratn Sambrekar,
..   'S./0.Lait~ev B:.:~11a_ram Vittal Sambrekar.
 _.ab0V"£'I.t 24 years.

\\s./



5. Poomima }E3a1]aram Sambrekar,
D / 0.Late Balaram Vittal Sambrekeuz
Aged about 22 years.

AM are residentis of
Kuiagi Road.

Near Datta Madira,
Dandeli Taluk.

Ut':i'a1'a Kannada I.)ist1"ict.   I

[By Sri.T.S.Nada§ :1;1d Sri.B.Praff'1:)€§';.V_)Xdxr§§',}
And: K V.

E. The State of Karnat.aka,    _' V 
Commerce and Industries .VD_e;p_ar'§.n1ef1_1j; AA " 
Mines Section,  V   ~ 
M.S.Bui1ding,   
Dr.Ambedkar Ve€d.hf1'--, ._
Bangal0re~ 560 00 if  ' '

By its Se(:ret;'%1ry._T"  ' '

2. The DiI'€:CV_'J1"_.01';,"

' ' D'e';jé*;'1*t"r'ri111,'v V ._  
Devazay U178 Rea-d, " V

 " 'Bangvaii:>re';56MO O0   ..... M *

3. Tfhe. DepL1t3f'Diz'§é(:t0r,
De_par_tmt3:1f:'«.Qi' 1\Zii1'ies and Geology,
Govt3rrf1memi"ca'ji" !§'ar11a1t.ak21,

  Belgaixm '..{31"stz'ict:
 Bglgaum V590 001. ..RESPONI_)ENTS

  {Bj;%"Sri.Basa\rare1j Kareddy, AGA for R1-3)

-oO0»

N/



C__;J

W .13'  fiied under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India praying to quash the order at Annexure--L dated 23-
1-2007 passed by the 1st respondent.

This WP coming on for f1,1rt.her hearing before

this day. upon hearing. Gopala Gowda, J

following: —

ORDEfl”m:”

The ca1’1cc1Iat.ion of mining If3’c1S€2:’gI’::3i;I_1′.[€’.d if}-.fE3i’V.C)i.11;

petitioner is questioned in this petition’v.1.i’17giVi:gVVarious

grounds. The principal c<3n'te11tjaViton'ti.sj that thetvlease was for

Manganese Ore, which is a major"r;ii1:.ei'aA1j.an_.d therefore the

State GoVernrnent"hua_'s the tease and

corisequently the. vinipu_g'i1e'(}i.oi?vder void ab initio.

2. The ‘*eo1’1t.e.n’tionp tzaimtit. be accepted for the reason
that in ofx’raajo1’ mineral, power is vested with the

Centrai.,Go\g*ernrnSe-:t1_t. In the instant, case. Annexure~D is the

mining”1.ease’uCieie’d”‘and the same is executed by the State

Gove1’nmentT”.in”favour of the petitioner, which has no power

-._or :;1eLlt:h’O’ijit.y in respect of major mineral. ‘I’herefore, the lease

«i”a\té;§L1rAoi” the petitioner itself is bad in law. Such being the

p(}Sll1iO1’1. the petitiorier cannot contend that the State
Government: has no eompet.er1.ce to cancel the 1eas§::”‘—-.deed
executed by it in fa.voi.ir of the petitioner in
leased Area.

3. As could be seen Fr(_>.1ii” the’ iii”ipt;igI1_ed.VVfilrderl;

opportunity was given to the pet_it.ioner in t.he.rnaVt.t.er.°} .HiS.”‘.

representation has been Considere’d,l:3y the StateGo\?e.rnnient.
The reason for caiiee.lling:_”the fIea_se’ letter of Chief

Conservator of Forest dated that the

leased area is in’–.&Westerii.._ section that the

famous habitat is situated in
the… 1;-he mining -operations are
eontinu.ed,_ it vxvilll impact on the environrrient
i;€:1es–t.Ar1ietion'””oi” flora, fauna, birds and animals.

There “is laisVo..sveeolwogica1 imbalance in the leased Area. That

Vaparii, U.’–.1 Publie Interest. Litigation is also filed in

_..l.l’.f\?’y’«.P;Nt)..1.225?l7200E:3. Therefore. the cancellation of mining

“=ie’ase ,g’i”e3_.i1t)ed in favour of the petitioner cemriot. be found fault;

llr:vi’th_,b},5 this Court.

l«i/

EUDGE;

4. Admiimdly. the {and in questiion is 21 .Patta land. For

ctonductixag I’niI”li1’1g or qtiarrying operaiiions in s1.1c_h,_:l’a._i1ds,

(‘.()I1\-‘€I’Si()11 of the ldlld in question for Chaiige of ‘ .

agricultiiiral p1.11’p0se 110 r1011–21griCu1tu_ra.}_pu’1″pdsé” «V

under Section 95 of the Kzimataka Lafid I'{eJvién{1s: ;13.<?;'i sf

The land in qiiestlitm is not U:%Q"1'iyert,e'ci, .I~Iex1C<§;"*~mii1i11g*

operation ctannot be aiiowedto its 'FO1"._t1'].1:§S reason
also, {he cancellation is in question
has to be upheldéland cannot be
interfeied with its discretionary
and Sup€;'r\(is'(f)'1*~y, reasons stat.<-3d supra,
the writ i3'<:tii;_i_«()ri_is' snd liable to be dismissed.

5. Accordingly”. iihft wvrit.’..pxet’.iti0’n is dismissed.

Sd/-3
JUDGE

gdgfs