IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009_W,O*._V_
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. PD. DINAKARAN, CH1EE_JOsjTOE O
AND
THE HONBLE MR.JUST1CE . 2 "
WRIT PETITION Nbs.,_i44o1-6212eo9;.:
BETWEEN:
1
{By s;--i:,{sma;--
ASS'1S.) '
SRIBRAHMAIAH 2
S/O LATETHSRUMALAIAH g ~
R/AT HOSAKOPPA Vii;x.AGE {KOPPA} A " "
HOLEHONNU_R- HOBLI AESED P,O~. fj 'V
BHADRA=;jAT;'éi;' TALUK,' '
s1-IIMOGA'
PETITiONER\ -A
{COMMON IN BOTH
THE PETETEONS)
ADV. FOR M/s. T SESHAGERI
AND:
g ' STATE" OF.._KARE\%ATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF' COMMERCE AND
INDUSTREES.
V _ ' 'REEBY 'SECRETARY
._ " CVEDHANASOUDHA,
A 'BANGA"L_O'RE 1.
O DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
IN*THE STATE OF KARANTAKA.
'*-._KI~«IAN1JA BHAVAN,
__.RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE 1.
THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF %
MINES AND GEOLOGY
SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE.
4 THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
SHIMOGA.
5 THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, BHADRAVATHI.
SHIMOGA.
6 I-IE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SHIMOGA SUB DIVISION, * _ ~
SHIMOGA. I RE._SPONI)ENT:tS.' "
{COMNEONIN E013
THP;v1_°E2'I'ifi'I(3f;NSj;
(By Sri/Smt : BASAVARAJ KAREi)£DYi"v--G£&..SD. I «
"','N!=a:1«_"'=l==E¢3/:. / a V
THESE w.Ps. F.i,LEI)V {To QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORIDIS-RS---_(a] ;oiI*._, I'V;2.2I,20.09_uONE PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT 1'-iJO.«=i;§FOUi\I'I) AT ANNEXP. 413;" DT. 20.4.2009 ONE
PASSED BY:.’I”}£EI..__R.”3S–POND.ENT NO;.3, IN REVISION PETITION
NO. 171/2OO9_VF(;:)_U;E_VD Ar ‘
TPIESEWRIT COMING ON FOR HEARING ON
THIS DAY, sA.BHzrJ1::1§ ‘.3, THE FOLLOWING.’-
E R
_f’l”he.se pefititoyns lare filed under Articies 226 and
~,COnStitution of India, seeking for quashing
oforder dated 12 / 2/ 2009 passed by the
–V reSp’on.tier1t.’i\:io.4 ~ Senior Geologist, Dept. of Mines and
‘:jGeoioIgy,vV” Shimoga, as per Annexure ‘F’ to the writ
and aiso to quash the order dated 20/4/2009
téjiavtzissed by the 8″‘ respondent — Joint Director of Mines
and Geology, in Revision Petition No.I71/2009 and to
V’
grant such other order or orders as this Court deems
just and necessary to meet the ends ofjustice. -f ~
2. It is averred in the petition
belongs to Bovi community andlpuhisi.iavvocation.is~Vst_oneid
cutting and petitioner is eking odtitdhis
stone cutting and in the rriade an
application for grant ” before the 4″‘-
respondent over. fin _ar<§aIf Gkintas in
Sy.No. 97 of d it Bhdadravathi Taluk.
The the application
has granted favour of the petitioner for
a perioddoffld five V'3*ears»– andthe said lease has expired
_ 1itt1e4_;jearI.ier t'o~2006. The petitioner has filed
vreiievszaliappgiication before the respondent No.4 with a
the {ease for a further period of 5
V V . years'. respondent No.4 after considering the
gipplication for renewal, renewed the lease for a further
–‘ of 5 years with effect from 7/8/2006 and ‘
ekecuted a fresh lease deed in favour of the petitioner
having quarry lease No.QL.528 and petitioner is
\./”
operating quarry and paying royalty levied by the Dept.
of Mines and Geology Without committing any _
It is necessary to obtain No Objection Certi-Eic:iatec:lV: V’
the Asst. Commissioner, Shims-ga S;,ib¥D_ivision;’*~«
Shimoga, before renewing the ancigthei.
Commissioner, Shimoga,
Certificate on 3/2/2005, w’nefi’l.iiaél’r:hingsi’steed thus,
respondent No.4 issnedla to_.th:enfpe_ti.tioner stating
that respondent: to the effect
that in Sy.No. 103 of
lands coming within
the reserved forest.» him to cancel the quark’?
lease Agranted to various persons including the petitioner
“hereiin and the basis of the same, show cause notice
petitioner as to why the quarry lease
it L granted him on 7/8/2006 should not be cancelled. y
Vlpkespondent No.5 did not intimate the 411′} respondent to
lannalll the lease granted to various persons in respect of
it ~Sy:.No.97 of Jainbarghatta Village. What he had referred
it to was in respect of Sy.Nos.129, 103 and 137 of
e \)
Jambarghatta village and not in respect of Sy.No.97.
Pursuant to receiving the notice dated 15/ 12/
9/ 1/2009 the petitioner sent his reply .
Sy.No.97 of Jambarghatta village; isnot H”
the reserved forest and lease was
necessary N.O.C. from the*..’Revenu’e.__Departrrient “and ” 2′
question of renewing the lease never. arise and
requested to drop all the matter.
The respondg211ir;l. Visio.4{g by’ area 12/2/2009
ordered to granted to the
petitioiierl’ _ 7″/?§st/éoote holding that Sy.No.97 of-
Jambarghatta the limits of reserved
forest .. andédthat-the”‘quarrying operation would cause
the crops’ raised in the neighbouring lands
has cancelled the quarry lease granted
lav’-«4theV___v’petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order
passeddhby the respondent No.4 dated 12/2/2009,
0 revision had been filed before the respondent No.3 by
-~-‘the petitioner and the said revision was dismissed on
20 / 4 / 2009 and being aggrieved by the same, these writ
\}’
petitions are filed contending that the order impugned
is erroneous and illegal and the same is liabie to be set
aside and therefore, the order passed by respondents 3
and 4 are unsustainabie and liable to be quashpedi.’ “..
3. We have heard the learned counselljapplearingpli
for the petitioner and the leariied. pp
appearing for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner
reiterated the grounds’-fiiirgepd petition and
submitted that .Sy.No,9″?- village is a
revenue land forest land and the respondents 3
and 4 are’-snot cancelling the quarry lease
granted to thelnipetiittionier holding that Sy.No.97 is in the
reserye_,forest”‘area and the writ petitions are liable to be
setting aside the orders passed by the
it respondents and 4.
Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for
respondents submitted that Sy.No.97 of Jambarghatta
” village is in reserve forest area and petitioner cannot
\)
and therefore, petitioner cannot carry on quarry work in
the said forest area. According to the petitioner, the
land comprising Sy.No.97 of Jambarghatta village” is a
revenue land and the Asst. Commissioner
N.O.C. and however, the material on record *
that as per the report submittepd ll
Commissioner of Forest, Bhadrlavatlhif
103 of Jarnbarghatta village«_,are inf.reserve’~.:fore’s’t”area ”
and even the Deputy Qorrimissionerl,”V-has also
recommended for cancellation».o’f;the lease in- favour
of the onith.e’§rouI1.dVVlthat lands in respect of
which lelaseis granted ‘is.__r’es’erve forest land.
revisio_n_,,the Joint Director of Mines and
Geo’l9gy._{‘thej3F¢ respondent has considered the entire
rnateriall record after affording opportunity to the
‘.,petitio,:1er«:_ to substantiate his ground and has come to
A ..,lt’h:ell’conclusion that land comprising in Sy.No.97 of
…_l'”‘lJa;11barghatta village is in reserve forest area and
“shaving regard to the letter of the competent authority
dated 20 / 4 / 2009 and notification dated 14/ 12/ 1981,
\.5’*’
accordingly, the 3″‘ respondent revisional authority
upheld the order of the competent authority..and’
directed to collect the arrears of C’
petitioner along with interest up””to ‘the-«,date,_as_ it
under Rule 36 and 39 of Karnataka gi\/Iinor” Iv\/Ijilfieraic
Concession Rules, 1994 of the
revision petition on20__[ is clear
that there is a the competent
authority — “‘ar:id.”‘~3.?é:V.flrespondent — the
revisional=i’ of Jambarghatta
vii1ag§:i”‘irii lease has been
granted. ‘th_e”j’petitioner is in reserve forest
area andC4″‘th_§3rCfore,”- petitioner cannot carry on the
“a,ctivityl,Wvvhich is not forest activity without
,__.obtaini:I§tg:lgpermgission of the Central Govt. under Section
tgheliviiorest Conservation Act, 1980 and the
V’44._Xe’:QnteIitigh of the petitioner that the land in Sy.No.97 of
gv.”.vcIa;a’31ll3farghatta village is a revenue land has been
_rejected by respondents 3 and 4 and having regard to
“the above said material on record, it is ciear that the
‘\/Q’
10
concurrent finding on the question of fact, to the effect
that the land in Sy.No.9’7 of Jambarghatta village is in
reserve forest area, the order cancelling quarrymg lease
granted in favour of the petitioner is justified :”_’does
not suffer from any error or illegality as.,”‘t–o ‘
interference in these writ petitions.’ A§ccorC’1irrgly,._j’wév..
hold that there is no merit in
pass the following order:–
These writ petitions; are di:-s1i1’i~sse’d;s _
sci/–
Chiel lustice
Sd/-
….. JUDGE
Index: Yes’,’.I;\?oll’,»~””” Sd;/,
.. ‘l ‘ Web Yes//No
*’Fi’11vs