IN THE HIGH coum or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2"" DAY 05 JULY, 2009 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, cmE:= 3us.'r1t;§jE': AND THE i-i0N'8LE MR.Jus'rIcE v.G';i"sAeHAH1Tfj WRIT PETIT!ON No.37s9 of zgig M'M1§§.,,,d «. " T Between: V. Nagappa S/0 Veerabhadrappa Aged about 45 years Resident of Hangaia Viliage Tq: Gundiupet Dist: Chamarajnagar ...Petitioner sissy 'firiilciha'«n§tI'rashek'ar.Pi."'Patii, Advocate) 1. The State ofiiéarnataka _ _ Represented by*-its Secretary Revenue» Department' " " V - Ambedkar Veedhi " M'uiti--storiéd'ABu'ii!.ding, "B_angaio_re .5 E-.60_001 2. Chamafajnagarr'District Cha maraijna'garv i W H B:eu'piJty Director " E De'partm.ent of Mines and Geoiogy 'Chanfiarajanagar Division _' "charriarajanagar ...Respondents
(By Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, GA)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement clt. 21.2.2007
issued by the R3 to the petitioner as contained in Annexure–E).__:__ and
etc. ‘ *
This writ petition coming up for preliminary hearing
Court delivered the foEiowing:-
.-1__l1_D._§.3__|”_|._E__|’*L_’_
(Deiivered by P.D. Dinakaf3i3’é_”\”2.l.i3.l4.’
The petitioner is the owner’lVo’f–the ‘ianids. _i:>earin’g–..51.;-~rve%y
No.261/1 measuring 3 acre 22 guntas’,situated:V._at_5Hangaia
Viilage, Gundlupet Taluk, Charriarajarii.aga’r–Vfi*aiukv The schedule
iands are patta iands and thei’petit:ioner”»isthe riattladar.
2. in:vo:l.vedéx_”in”vflzthis petition is as to
whether owner of quarrying activities are
being carrigecl _requ’iredstoiobtain conversion under Section
therl<a.rsnatayl<a 'l;an'd"'Revenue Act, 1964, as quarrying of
minor__ m_in'era_i'-isl néotran agricultural operation.
3.A The issue involved in this petition is simiiar to the
raised and considered by a Division Bench of this Court: in
M. KOKILA v. THE STATE or KARNATAKA AND
in Writ Appeal l\io.972 of 2006 disposed of on 2″” April,
2009. White dismissing the above writ appeal, it is observed as
hereunder:
“5. Patta lands are agricultural lands. In
lands agricultural operations have to be carried
per Section 2(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms’
1961 “agriculture” includes aquaculture, hort’i’cu:iture,i ‘
raising of crops, grass or garden prc=:duce,:A4 o’airy larmiilg, W
poultry farming, breeding of livestock ‘igra’2ing’.~ _ It”
does not include mining ori’iV_qu.a.rryingV. it In
availability of minor minerals iri”pat’ta lands,
operations are being carried on._.l”It –ai’noVu’nts tocliange of
land use from agricultural’ purpose tot;noneagricultural
purpose. Since it involves__di’versio__n of agri’céi.ltu–i*al land to
non–agricultural «purpose; con_version”_isVl necessary under
Sectiorr2)’ oiftheni .
” at “”95(“2.)_ V ~-If ar.zy'<"'occupant of land
assessed , or. l.aeld.._..'for the purpose of
A. -agriculture wishes to divert such land or any
part thereof to any other purpose he shall
V'notwithstanding'"anything contained in any
law_for'~..the time being in force apply for
tper_miss:Ton'–to the Deputy Commissioner who
._ .m'a.y;.,subje'ct to the provisions of this Section
and 'the.r"rules made thereunder this Act,
refuse permission or grant it on such
conditions as he may think fit."
in In” view of this specific provision, the Deputy
it . ‘Commissioner was justified in issuing the endorsements
impugned in the writ petitions and the learned single
it Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petitions holding that
,,- /i
3% 5
8. For the reasons stated above, the writ appeai is
devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.” it
4. We are in respectful agreement with;’_'”the.f_’V:-\ii_ews”_
expressed by this Court in Writ Appeai No.972 _of~24C}:e.6″‘refeArre:d ‘v
to above. Accordingly, foliowing the :said-..jiofdg;jmeirjt;-
petition is dismissed.
it “‘ie:SC}1,./V-w it
Chief Iiistice
3 . ’75
Ȥ
i J Judge
Index: YES / ~
/
Web host: YES /_
inn
