High Court Karnataka High Court

Hanamantappa S/O Fakkirappa … vs The State Reptd. By Secretary on 30 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Hanamantappa S/O Fakkirappa … vs The State Reptd. By Secretary on 30 July, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
  1:' A . 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT I:3ANGALc.V)';%2_§:A._V_

DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JULY 2009- 5   ;_. A' 

PRES ENT

THE HON'BLE MR. 13.1). DINAKAI§AN»,::Cs1I'EDF  _v A 1:'

AND .
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTI'C;E»V.G.SABFIA}4II'I;
WRIT PETITI(;)jgNO._«'1'i'3'1'{5:[2VC09  "

BETVVEEN :

1 HANAMAN'TAI?PA A  '- 

S/O  NLALAMNLANTAKIAR

AGED 52  A _  G_  '
OCC.:T.AGRIC[}'i;fJ,'U_REV 

R/O. RANEBENEXHJR 

DISTRICT   ' '  PETITIONER

(By Sri: K N  RAO )

  SECRETARY
_ --D2239'-:{iDF MINES AND GEOLOGY
. BANGALORE A

 _  SENIGRVGEOLOGIST

 

T ; MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMETN
" V DHINAGAR
' 'DHARVVAD

 



3 THE DEPUTY COMMESSIONER
HAVERI DISTRICT HAVERI

4 THE TAHASILDAR
RANEBEN N UR

DIST HAVERI. ...%RESPo:aDE1SiTs"'~~.:  " 

(By Sn':BASAVARAJ KAREDDY, GA.,]:'..__

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING-..fro QUASH AIQN-A,A'.&v C.&
D NOTICES ISSUED BY R2, AND'~TC5.QUASH  N(E)TICES
ISSUED BY THE R3 & R4 AS PER._ANN--E BY' ISSUZNG A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR» OTHER APPROPREATES WRIT
OR ORDERS. '   --  .   

This Writ petition_  'Rreiirxziinaxy Hearing on
this day, SABfIA}f?II'I'§L', made  fo_I1QWin'g.-----~"

 . . E .   N     

 :is» nnchier Articles 226 and 227 of

the Constitunegi .of I-ndia  quashing notice Annexure--D

-dated  and "ea;j1_i_e.:" notices Annexures--A to C annexed

V"c.r;V> writv_petit_1;E)n__and also to quash Annexure--E issued by

the   recovering arrears of royalty and penalty

as arrears (1-Sf land revenue.

\.2x



2. It is the contention of the petitioner that a notieeéllllias

been issued to the petitioner on 6.6.2007 alleging _

petitioner had stored the sand to an extent of 900,  "

in RS.No.6/ 1B of Paste Vittal s/o.Vishnap'pa  

Ranebennur Taluk and the saidsand hadlbeen rernoired fifoin 

Tungabhadra river without  royalty   the
penalty to the Government to pay the
royalty and penalty of   days of the
issuance of  15.3.2008,
18.10.2008 andflfifia;s':"_;1.§ti¢.?ft1a£§d5gg3.,'1.2009 have been
issued and   for recovering the
amount  iiljppetitioners as arrears of land

revenue. Being..aggniev_ed*._}oy«the same, writ petition is filed for

. the ahoxije said reliefs contending that petitioner has not stored

V'sand"u_nauthoi'isedly as the land in which sand was stored

 Vittal s/o.Vishnappa and petitioner not

Vbeing the  of the sand which is stored in the land

 Aubpeloizging to Paste Vittal, the petitioner is not liable to pay any

\)

 



mined by the petitioner and illegally stored in the land4Paiste

Vittal and therefore, petitioner is liable to pay  _

penalty. On the other hand, it is the conten:ti~on*:of«.the  

petitioner that he is not the owner of the..lajz1d--cc .'

stored and he has not mined any sand" and was"i1otd'I_iabli: to 

pay any amount and the demand'<n_Votice has  trguashed.
The materiai on record  that  petitioner
was issued with notices  and final
notice dated    not choose to
reply to the    the said sand stored
in the  does not belong to
him and the: respondents reveal that it

was the petitioner=who_ sand illegally without obtaining

– any lic’e~ir1ee__fAand stor”ed..t.he same in the land of Paste Vittal and

“iihcreforpe, .1nf.trieA’absence of any explanation submitted by the

petitioiier v.ir1’A.Tr.esponse to the four notices issued to the

V petitioner, “respondents were justified in holding that the sand

stored” in the land of Paste Vittai s/o.Vishnappa which

‘_’be’lcrVigs°’to the petitioner and in demanding the arrears of

royalty and penalty and having regard to the above said_V”faC~ts.
we do not find any reason to interfere with the _
notices in exercise of the writ }’urisdic:tion_- dd
Accordingly, we hold that there is no
and pass the following order: V’ d. A d V

The Writ petition is dismissecia ‘ ‘ a ‘sa./

_ Chief Iilstice

2g~ ~.aW»]UDGE

V

‘I:f1(i<'<'X:" Yes'/No ' ..

. V Web” Host: