High Court Karnataka High Court

Ramakrishnaiah vs The Director Of Mines & Geology on 14 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Ramakrishnaiah vs The Director Of Mines & Geology on 14 October, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 14"WDAY 0F. .oc.To3.Ep,._, 2_oo_9_.___   

PRESENT

THE 3-|ON'BLE MR.P.D.DINAKA§2AN, CHIEF   "

AND 

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICEMOHANASHANTAii:JA6OL}D\ARNv 

WRIT PETITION No.2s:§4/2009 (GM-MM-$'5kkk  
BETWEEN:   A A

Ramakrishnaiah

S/0.1ate Jawtarégzjwda A   .. A' A

Aged 5<3y~ear's;- ''  '

R/0.U;§jani ViI1age_  %   _

I-Iuliyurdtirga Hobii-.%¢.   "

Kuniga1Taluk _ 2 ' _  '

Tumku1'Dist. . ._  '  .. PETETIONER

.~ A. «_ {By  E:{a1¢EHg1iI1a._S118;I'iff, Advocate]

'i I The  'of Mines

 £3-P,_O1'.ogy
Govfiof Karnataka
Khanija Bhavan

A' ' Race Course Road

A *  I3raI1galore--1



2. The Deputy Commissioner
Tumkur District
Tumkur

3. The Senior Geologist
Department of Mines 8: Geology
Tumkur District
Tumkur

4. The Tahsildar

Kunigal Taluk   
Kunigal     '     f
Tumkur District  RESPON .   

[By Sri Basavaraj Karecldy, _

This Writ petition isfi1ed-- eui1d.er'l'Artic1es 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, p.raying~_ tc.f;vde~clare that the
petitioner who isthe owner   landglbearing Sy.No.18'7
measuring 9 lguiitas situatec.i7in'<IJjjai1j..Village, I-iuliyurdurga
Hobli, Kunigai 5l'1_1rx1l;ur_<--D]istrict, is not required to
obtain anyiquarry lea.se"'fr'oyn1'--.R1 to R4 for quarrying minor
mineral, ygiz§';.ys'ar11-:1___from t_he"said land for his own purpose

viz., for co'nst:*::ctionV'of"his=house, etc.

  'petition coming on for preliminary hearing,

 '"-.thi's--. "day 1v.roHAN'""sHANTANAooUDAR, J., delivered the

JUDGMENT

Pet’itioner has sought for declaration that he is not

recyuiredsto obtain quarry licence from respondents 1 to

for quarrying minor mineral, i.e., sand from the land

‘Ea/”*5

– 3-

bearing Sy.No.l8’7, measuring 9 guntas, situated in
Ujjani Village, Huliyurdurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur. District, as the said land is a patta land Vowned

by him.

2.Even assuming that the petitioner

of the property bearing No.18′?

T aluk, to an extent of 9 gguntas,4l’heFwill hamgto

certain procedure for quarrying though, he
may not be liable obtainlyi lease Hxfrom the

concerned authtorities, in question

is any agrirzuyiturgal ‘ The same is not non-

agriculturalll so, the petitioner has to

appiroaeli the “cornpe.tent authority for getting his land

‘(§oi1Ver.ted ..r1on–agricultural purpose. He will also

have tolfoiioiyl other necessary formalities for quarrying

the V The same is not done by the petitioner as on

A “it The prayer of the petitioner can be considered

§

only after complying with the above formalities.

Accordingly, the following order is Inade:–

The Writ petition is disposed of, withptiihperfy’ tpotitliéu

petitioner to approach the

getting the land in qu.estion’V”.convertedArifor ‘”;I1.on-‘*2’

agricultural purpose and other
conditions if any, for the_’3p;éi1igd.

tckf¥