IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF AUGUST 2009
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. 9.1). DINAKARAN, CHIEF JUsmg¢g':' -- A.
AND
THE I-IOIWBLE MR.JUSTICE V5.'(};'S'ABIfI£;HIfI4 -V
WRIT PETITION NO. 12023/zoosyi' «f__(}:M_D-A1'\'/DI1\4DS»'+E?AiL).v ~. "
B ETWEEN:
1
SR1 BASAVARAJ C S
8/0 SHIVANNA C N _ '. .
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS" * '
I-IOSABEETHI '-
'
TUMKUR D1s1fR1CT._» ' ' 1.
SRIANANDAIAI-I ,\
s/0 SIDDARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
HO§fis.BEETHI « _____ .. e
'C1e11'I{KAAN*AYAKANAHALL1 TALUK
TUMKURVDISTRICT
= 3 "SRVDI. 'PCU'fTA1A.H'J;;. V ' 'V
S /Q' SID};'A}V_iALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
HR/AT ":3 :4; ROAD
* A " CVCHIKKANAYAKANAI-IALLI TALUK
fI'I;J_M}{,UR DISTRICT
SVDRI BEERALINGAIAI-I C M
/0 MAHALINGAIAH
R/AT KANAKADASANAGAR
CI-IIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
SR1 NAGALINGAIAH
S/O SIDDARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
NEAR REVANNA TEMPLE
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
SRI MAHALINGAIAI-I G
S /O GINIMUDDAIAI-I
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R /O KANAKADASANAGAR
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI'TALLSKM I
TUMKUR DISTRICT
SRI MANJUNATHS
S/O SANNAMALLIAIAH ._ 1.
AGED ABOUT '-35 §zfEAR.S*. _
R/O RAYAPRA,I:A PAj:;;IiA"~.IV"-
MALIGEHALLI « .
cHIKKANAYAKANAI4ALLI_.T'A,L1.IIARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
I " M;S.BUILDING
-~I3ANGALORE--0I
3 THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF' MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORIFLOI
4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND CEOLQCY
TUMKUR " "-
5 SR1 B D HANUMAN SINGH
NO 36 AND 37, PATEL LAYOUT
OPP CANARA BANK
BEGUR ROAD
BANGALORE~68
6 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF C'O'NSE'RyiATO.R .
OF FOREST, ARANYA BHAYAN I ' ' ~
18TH CROSS MALL.ESwARANI':
BANGALORESOOCIIQS; i
7 VINODFOOEL ' I
AGED A'I3OUT'50 YEAR-'S._.
S /O MADAN LAL 'GOEL ,. "
FROPRIETOR, SHR1' ._HA.NUE\"/IAN MINES
NO.4~p'8, _12'I'H MAIN RMV EXTENSION
I. I SADE5':.AS_HIVNAGAR. .. ..... .. »
' I3.ANIGALORE-560080. RESPONDENTS
(By SriTB_AVSA\fAR}Rf”KA~REDDY, GA FOR R1 TO R4, R-6, SR1
D.L.N.RAO.,SRCOUNISEL FOR VINAYA KEERTHI FOR Rx: }
« TIwIIS”‘w.P¥.. ISFILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 85 227 OF THE
~..’.;CO_NSTITUTIO_N’i- OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
_ RESRONDENTS No.1 TO 4 TO CANCEL THE MINING LEASE NO.
‘~._22.2o.’C.RAN_TED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN SO FAR AS IT
»_-,_RE_LATES’TO FOREST AREA IN SY.NO. 9T OF RAJATHADRIPURA
–.FQRES’1? AREA MEASURING 71.30 ACRES.
counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri D.L.N.Rao, learned senior
counsel appearing for respondent No.7 and Sri Basavaraj
learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 4 __and 0 *
Court passed a detailed interim order dt.0t.3,0.8,_200’3,.l”Whli_chllreads
as hereunder:
“l.1. Even though the land’to___an lexteint, ofVL7i’ll…;2.Q_H
acres in Sy.No.95 of Rajathadrip:u1″a village,l”e’ilipti.1;r
Taluk, Tumkur District, was gr.anted’–foiv.mining”lease
originally in favour io£.t_he–_ —
B.D.Hanun1an Singh in thevilyeaiifll€l,7’6′”and~l._’thcreafter,
got transferred. indpfavouir ofifhe rjespondentw
Vinod Goel,objectedvthe same on the
grounda_ithat_i dated 24.03.2008, the
Principal’.,(i§hielf of Forests, Bangalore,
cancelled the lease as the same is
notified”a,s ‘Rajathadripura State Forest’ and not as a
0′ ‘vrevende aiand». A
,.lO’ni”thestrength of the said proceedings, the
petitioners, preferred this writ petition seeking for
lathe folloviring reliefs:
Issue a writ /order/direction in the
nature of mandamus, directing the
respondents 1\§os.1 to 4 to cancel mining lease
J’-
/~””‘
5 .- .
3 2
f . ,.M”‘M,,,–
Department, to enable the Forest Department to verifyfil
and submit whether the impugned land is a
land or a revenue land.
4. in the meanwhile, on 19.09.2005. thc._pietiti.onVeVrs_
moved an application to implead the Chief: ”
Conservator of Forests as respondent N-9.6. Theiisai-:1_V
application came to be allowed 09.2lOQ8i”anVt:1
Forest Department represented. it Principal’ ‘Chi’ef
Conservator of Forests iin’p1eaded”–andthereafter,
the seventh respondent of the
mining lease fI:TCI'{:1Lt:i’1€ fifth. irnpleaded
as a party rssp’ssdl{p._’:. by lap ‘0.rde–r’ dated .17. 1 1.2008.
5. it is brouvghtvto{i’Our’~nVot.ice by the Principal Chief
Conservator” of per the proceedings
dated 24.03.2008, -thieqiinpugned land is shown as
‘Raja.i.hadripura€~.tate Forest’. it is also brought to our
ihnoticei that. the seventh respondent filed four original
_’suiis-is-.ol.S’;iN:ss..1.24/2007, 125/2007, 1/2008 and
if)’/2008i’on.”_’th.e’g::.file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.)
and”. Tiptur, seeking for an injunction
firestraininlg the Forest Department from interfering
it ~viiith”«the mining activity and the usage of the road.
Taking note of the above fact, this Court by an
order dated 17.11.2008, called for the records in
/ …. ,A=/mag”,
3; \’=.
i 1 r
‘E :’
alleged by the seventh respondent, in our considered
opinion, once it is treated as a forest land, viz.,
‘Rajathadripura State Forest’ Section 2 of the Forest;_l”~.._il’~
(Conservation) Act operates and, by operation of . Al
the seventh respondent is not entitled to carrygl on-_
mining operation of iron ore in the».impugr1ledi 0
though the Government has granted miniAIigl*lease”—in”VE
favour of the seventh respondent since}
9.2 Of course, learned 0}ox_ie1*n_me1i.t’-.l?§d\}’ocate
submitted that till the*.p.assin’g” “tlie_._procee’di1*1gls
dated 24.03.2008, by the :.0hie:f._Conservator
of Forests, the irnpugned…land vsias:bgn(‘).t’vconsidered as
forest land.
9.3 that.Vasi/:it.lin:fil$l;’.by virtue of proceedings
dated 24.03′;–7?,;008g, the’.irr1p1’igned land is not available
for operation of miningv lease as the same is a forest
0′ “land”, unless” agclearance is obtained under Section 2 of
the’F’ore’st'{-Coziservation) Act, ‘i980.
9.4,! alternate, Mr. lZL).L.N.Rao, learned Senior
Counsel suggested that since the seventh respondent
,:ha.s_.already been granted mining lease in the adjacent
.1and,i.–lie., Sy.No.1S0 and since he has no objection to
take the said extent of land, in lieu. of an extent of
71.20 acres located in Sy.No.95, for which, the
petitioners cannot have any objections.
9.5 In the light of the submissions made
learned counsel for the parties and inmview ofthve ‘ V
that admittedly, right from 1976, it Cxolveriimieint.
which has ‘granted an extent of 71.2l0,_aer_e.s of ins, 2′
Sy.No.95 of Rajathadripuralivillage, Tiptzlr
Turnkur District, treating it asH’a._Vlglrevgenue”land
there was no fault on tiie..,_part”loi”l resplendent
and thereafter, on the pariiof ,re’spondent-
transferee whatsoever tilidatexand have also
been paying ,”royjal’t , towlfldirect the
Government grant of 71.20
acres land0gVin’.VS;t§i’Io.’1S0.._in- lieu of 71.20 acres of
land in AS«_vV.Nop.95 the seventh respondent,
provided, area’ to eittent of 71.20 acres located
in Sy_§l,No;’l 50 is”a.._rever1ue land and the Principal Chief
,.,.,QQf1se;~{,f;itorVl’ also certifies that it is not a
,_iforest,,la–n_d the said land is available for grant of
“‘The..__r’n’a-tt-er is adjourned to next week”.
Pursuant to the said interim order 06.08.2009, learned
–:’Golvernment_Advocate and based on instructions from the revenue
authorities by their proceedings dated 11.08.2009, submits that
211:»
the total area of an extent of 265.34 acres located in Sy.No.15Q in
Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District c1assiEeii._4asV
revenue land, and out of which the following lands .
been granted to various persons for the purpose as_’:1’e1eJ.jj1’1d’e’::
Name sent k G Rgmarkt
1. B.D.Hanuman Singh
((Granted to 5″‘ respondent”
subsequentiy transferred to H " V 7m respondent} ' i' 22'? . « _ Lease 2. KLLIr1dustries " 5_:Of) Lease 3/fhakur Sing_h__ *1.;:____ not ' 7 ' ' mentioned
4. Lakshmidevammadv _ 0.33 guntas Granted
5. Devarajammaxwr’/o Narasingaiiaga £1.20 acres Granted
6. Nanjundgaitah. s /0 HaIVr1Va’r’1jaiV’21h 1.20 acres Granted
7 ; V N Vinayak 1 .20 acres Granted
8. Gar?gad_har’iah 1.20 acres Granted
G l\fagara§=.__s / o__vNIa,d.vaiah 1.20 acres Gran ted
Total 50.13 acres
E3
4. Even though the instructions of Tahsildar dated 11.082009
would read to the effect that in the remaining 215.21 a.c.r_es,.
Forest Department has planted trees, neither lthef:F.orest
Department nor the learned GovernrneintmlAdvocate«are, in-bra
position to clarify under what circumstancesand to”What ‘S*::séter1.tiV”
the trees have been planted in the reniaining area. ‘ . V
5. On the other hand, Mr.~Lx).L.Ne.lRao,.:l’learned senioncounsel
appearing for 7th respondent submilts.»lthat__lan_d.to an extent of
71.20 acres in Sy.No,<;'SDof was granted
by the respondents the said land as revenue
land and the were in possession of the
same for "past and they are not at all at fault at any
'of. said area is claimed to be a forest
land, i'resp'onde.n'tsiE5 '7 are entitled for mining lease to the same
l'v.__li"eXtent of–~..__reve'r1u_e:'.i' land in different survey number and the
_. ..Qfesplondents§mining authorities are under an obligation to provide
'*~.a1'ter:1ativel'1area of same extent, namely, '71.20 acres of revenue
. the neighbouring Sy.No.1SO of Rajathadripura village,
Taluk, Tumkur District, where the respondents have
E4
already granted mining lease in favour of Respondent No.7 herein
or in any other revenue land. Accordingly respondents 5
have also agreed to make necessary representation for allotnierit''oflV'' ,.
alternative revenue land of the same extent, namely, "'/1_,20,"acres,
either in sy.No.i5o of Rajathadripurafvillage,'..pTiptur«.Ta1ul<,
Tumkur District or in any other such available-area and also "
permission for approach road to carry the V_m'i:1era1s'*-randll to
transport the sarne.
6. We have given our careful conside_ration~~.to’theesubmission of
all the parties
‘7. It is not in’dflispute” axreziitent of 71.20 acres in Sy.No.95
of _ Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taluk, Turnkur District was
treateldaisvillrevenuel land by the Revenue Department at the time of
grantiof ‘~:;;i;i1eg-.1eas”.eto S91 respondent which was subsequently
W__i”transferred.__ toV_v’/’thvirespondent. But, the impugned area, namely
acres ‘sy_No.95 of Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taiuk,
Dilstrict is now found to be a forest land. Therefore, the
‘:re*sp;ondoents–5 and ‘7 cannot be found at fault and hence they are
x\ 3/
eéww”
entitled for grant of alternative land. Since responde:n’tts-
authorities themselves have granted lease to respondents»-5;_&’a.nd’.j’?i”
in Sy.No.15O of Rajathadripura village, Tiptur
District, which is admittedly a revenuefi1anid’e_ven .as.iV:on._ date,
respondents 5 and 7 are entitled to clairritarr.a1terria_tiVe-a’~reaiiofAii’
same extent ie., 71.20 acres in
village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkurv}L1i.strig1;i.g11’id_: respondentgiatithorities
are under an obligation to verepresentation, in
preference to other appii’eation’s”forriigrantflofilease iiirhich are yet to
be taken into con.s-Ld’eraifi_on. by”re’s.pon’defnts– authorities, because
the right of for of mining lease to an
extent of acres ..i_:reve:1ue lands has already been
considered and granted ithieiirespondentsl themselves 30 years
…..
8. Inxthe eircunfi’star1_ces, in order to meet the ends of justice, we
” pass the foiIoWin§it:erid’eir:
(i) Respondents 5 and 7 are given liberty to make
.,representation to respondentswauthorities to grant an
aiternate area of an extent of 71.20 acres in revenue
i ” “and in Sy.1\§0.150 of Rajathadripura village, Tiptur