IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS TI-IE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 20:)-QT'-w._
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. 9.1). DIN . c;i41IEI§€ §.fiSTiQE- _ " "
AND
TI-IE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTIOE AIia*A1SiDVBI*I§AI;EDDrjr
WRIT PETITION NO.166§5_ _'0_§'x 2966 (GM-Mms)
BETWEEN
1 SYED GAzA.NFARULLA"~; _
S/O ABDUL JABBAR ~
AGED ABO:J*i?,_55 YEjA_RS.._ ' g
R/A S.P,S.I:'OMPL.,EX;=VANw' 'STREET
_ . PETITIONER
(BY MSJM SAFEENA AIQVOCATE}
AND
., STATE OFIIARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECY
I A . I REVENUEDEPARTMENT
AMBED.KA_R'~VEEDI,
._ "'".1&?IU'LTi~v:Sg'i'f);'RIED BUILDING
A VBANQALORE 56000I
1' " " .. , I'r1~IE~DEI>UIY COMMISSIONER
" 3' SENIOR GEOLOGIST
_ MYSORE DISTRICT
'-MYSORE
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND
GEOLOGY, MY SORE DISTRICT
REspoNpE1§_f1."s
{BY SR1 BVEERAPPA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER 226-
227 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA P:R2§Y5ING.:
ENDORSEMENT DT. 6.1 1.05 __T() 1>a,E;TI:f1',1':(V)"z\I1a:'_};2s's As
CONTAINED IN ANN--B.
THIS WRIT PET1TIC)«:~i'rs"-r;(:a1y111§I'§':'j_1jP». FOR HEARING ON
THIS DAY, THE COURT DEL1VE}RED:'eTHIé§ F§i;Low1NG:-
. E ;JiJ_:)G13'5I§"z'vT
_ P..D.Dinakaran, C.J .)
epetltioxner;vanagrieulturist, While cultivating the land
measuring 3 acres 21 guntas, Sy.N0.322/2
12 guntas and Sy.No.32.'Z/ 1, measuring 2
.acresO'."3Ov*gt1r1tas situated at I-ialaganehi Viilage, Biligere Hobli,
Taluk, found granite deposits In his land and sought
{extract granite deposits. The same was interfered by the
're.spendents, which came to be chalienged in a writ petition. The
order dated 14.07.1987 came to be passed in W.P.No/L563/1987
in favour of the petitioner. The State came up in appeal. The
appeals were rejected by the Division Bench of
which, the State Government filed an
No.-4627 to 4666/1988, which cahmfebfftci be -Idis_pO_sed"9'9f°.oni<.__ 9
03.04.1989. Since then, the petitionergand otne1'_=s:wereV
out quarrying of granite deposits*ve:'arid transpoi*ted after
obtaining permit from the~..I_')epartmegri;fi'Vo'I'.i'i/linesVandv:Geo1ogr, on
payment of requisite 'no interference by
any authoi;-ities.__ t"I:(:g):g\)\f'i3V(':I:jAI'(i'1é'916:;~1§fi:efi9QQ.6ViE11flf«eVI1dOI'S€II1eI'lt came to
be issued by and Geologr to convert the
land from .'totno_n-wagricultural land and to file
necessaryf'«app1ication_:'for 'transportation of granite blocks and
therefore, w1ti3IheldV.theAi.ss&i3e of permits. Hence, the petitioner
fhas afppropached this'C'oufrt seeking the following relief:
a)". '5'_to iss'u,¢ a:n"'order of certiorari quashing the endorsement
'o,;i~:eu.E;Uhnicha:Ka.oa.ou.2006-2007/3975 dated
x cgoe.'i..'i:'.20oe. g/"':f"'r~\}
2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the
Government Advocate for the respondents. V
3. The question involved in this petition is as~.tG..Whether
an owner of patta land, on which quarrying heing
carried on, is required to obtain conversion .u’nderf~Se’cti’on 95″o.f
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 11:96/igaais “‘:n_lnor.”‘
mineral is not an agricultural oper_ation.w_ it
4. The issue in*–,.r_olnr_ed”._in;V–_this_’pe’tition is similar to the
one raised and considere.d..b.y*.a’Division VI?3=erir:h of this Court in
the case__of._ STATE or KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS Appeal of 2006 disposed of on Zné April,
V 2009;}: ‘While dismiiissingi the above writ appeal, it is observed as
hereuildeifi
V:””~«.o5.;_5.VAV.:’Patta lands are agricultural lands. in such
A glands.aglfiicnltural operations have to be carried out. As
iperifipection 2(7) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
V ” Vii..4_f’a_9V,ficulture” includes aqua–culture, horticulture, raising
V’ crops, grass or garden produce, dairy farming, poultry
farming, breeding of livestock and grazing. it does not
include mining or quarrying. in view of availability of
minor minerals in patta lands, quarrying operationsfare
being carried on. it amounts to change of land usevilfi-‘pin
agricultural purpose to non–agricultural purpos_e.:.. .
involves diversion of agricultural land to nr.mva_g’riVcu–lt:ural ”
purpose, conversion is necessaryluinder ,Sectipn.,:9E.(2.)vVof’
the Act, which reads:–
“95(2) If ai;y_v””~QccupAant of
assessed or held folrctiier of}
agriculture wishes to’«d’ivertrsuch-._land orlany
part thereof to’ any othter purp_os.e”‘h.e shall
notwithstanding ‘a.nythir*.g”»con.tai n any
law ;_f’o’r’j;;t:h’e timeitieing’ i:n’:~f’or:ei apply for
Commissioner who
…. tothe prov’;sio”ns of this Section
_ andVy’t’i”ie~«s..ru’les”~i.rriade’ thereunder this Act,
refuse’ grant it on such
cor:diti0nsi–_asheVmay think fit.”
i«’1.,_V1′<=.'\A'/~VI""o-1-'——-«this specific provision, the Deputy
Comniissioner was justified in issuing the endorsements
in-the writ petitions and the learned single
'' judge rightly dismissed the writ petitions holding that
conversion is necessary to use the patta lands for
A. extracting minor mineral from them. We are in fully
' 'v.._a_g'reement with the view taken by the learned single
Judge and the order passed by him does not warrant
interference by this Court in exercise of this Court's
Appellate Jurisdiction and power.
6. We may also add that for doing
operations, no conversion, licence or permit is_:i.requi,:r–ed
whereas for carrying on mining operations, e$_{tra_ct
minor mineral, conversion under’ Section _:ofi’th_e VACE,
licence defined under Section.’ and “for
transportation permit defined under” Sectiov’n;2:4(h) of if
Karnataka Minor Mineral Conicession”‘R_ules,.U=1994Ware
required. Therefore, the—— a.p’pellant~writ’ ~–pet~itioners
cannot do mining operations {without Agllconversion order,
licence and permit,”Conseciueritly,Cfthe decision in
Veeramadhu’s,_case has no:’,app.li’ca’tion’ and’ reliance placed
on it :ari_d’..,legal ifcontention urged by the
learned”Senior”7’lj’o11’n’se.l’ placingv reliance upon the said
decision is whollypuntenalbile in law.
., Further welfare’ in respectful agreement with the
,;ii’nVdings and = reasons recorded by the learned single judge
ion:,,,£iieiVi’contentious points raised in the writ petition,
“answered against the Appellant in the
i.”-ilmpugriedVggiudgment, after referring to the to the rival
‘””—-lega’l contentions, provisions of the KLR Act and decisions
A of the Apex Court and this Court.”
8. For the reasons stated above, the writ appeal is
devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.”
5. We are in respectful agreement with the Views
expressed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.9″/2 of 200g’3″ifefefred to
above. Accordingly, following the said judg;nent,__tl;:;is’
is dismissed.
*lChiei’.sh§.$tioo
Index: Yes / No.
Web Host: Yes:/Nd ‘
v1’p/- 1 = ‘