{"id":266957,"date":"2009-11-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009"},"modified":"2014-10-16T02:34:28","modified_gmt":"2014-10-15T21:04:28","slug":"venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Venkategowda S\/O. Timmegowda vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Chief … on 23 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Venkategowda S\/O. Timmegowda vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Chief … on 23 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: V.Gopalagowda And B.V.Nagarathna<\/div>\n
 \n\nI\n\n \n\n-1-\n\nIN T HE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALO__RE\n\nDA'I'I:1D THIS TI\u00bb-IE 23% DAY OF NOVEMBER. .\n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HONBLE MRJUSTICExr;vGoAPA':;Af}bi\u00a2I[\u00a7A'_'_;_  V\n\nAND\nTHE HONBLE MRs.JUS_T--LcE BA.\";'.NA_QAbRA';T HNA\n\nw.p. No.9146-9162'\/\u00a33009'IGMQMM.\/As)_ \u00a7\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nVENKATE1G.0WDA -\". jj '\ns\/0. 'I'1lV1Ml';G-OWDA _, _\nAGED ABOLYF _70_Y?%3AR_S\n\nKAMALA ::  ' \n\nW\/Q.SWAM'Y:;(}Q\\\u00bbVi\u00a7A_ ' A'  ~\n.AGED'A.gfQU':'v'2s YEARS .\n\n1w{A_1.I\u00a5': .GO'\\vD'A{ j V   .. _ \nS \/ 0V._BENDI\u00a7=GOW'DA\"*-- \nAG ED .AB0{J'1\"- _7 6 YEA RS\n\n K V sIDDARAMHE_A(1owDA\n'S%O.KAI,ENKE GOWDA\n\n  AGE.D.A'B_OU'f 67' YEARS\n\n_ \u00a2JKEi\u00e9;ri~\u00a7%yE: <\u00a7o*gvDA\n S \/O.i'CFjUSHNE GOWDA\n\nA  AGEDVABOU1' 50 YEARS\n\nr\u00a7\u00abmJaE GOWDA\n. S\/OKALE GOWDA\n"AGEJD ABOUT 40 YEARS\n\nCHIKKE GOWDA\nS\/ OTHAMME GOWDA\nAGED ABOUT 60 YEARS\n\nKAI.AMi\\\/EA\nW\/ C). ERAIAH\nAG ED AEBOUT 40 YEARS\n\n\n\nIO\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\nA ALI. THE PE'1"I'I'"1ONERS ARE\n" R\/OVADDARA HALLI\nVILLAGE K I3E'I'I'A HALL! POST.\n\nVENKATESH\nS \/ O. KULLAIAH\nAGED ABOUT 36 YEARS\n\nSI-HVAIAH\nS\/O. KULLAIAH\nAGED ABOUT 35 YEARS\n\nV K MANJU\nS\/OKALASAIAH\n\nAGED ABOUT21 YEARS; _\n\nNARASAIAH\nS\/O. CHELUVAIAH\n\nAGED ABOUT 55y1aARs \n\nMAHADEVA \nS\/OLAKSHVMAJAH  H\n\nAGED ABOUT30 \n\n   \n\ns\/0_V'.rEN_KAf1A NA}  '  \nAGED 'ABOEEI 33  __\n\nP RAB  3'A:A1K_' ' - __\n\nS';\/_O;'E\\\/IU'KI_}?'\\E~I)"\/X.  " _\nAGEZ)' ABOUT 25 vs-A_Rs;"\n\n_ --SURE'S}'I._:NAIE{'\n s\/QRAMA NAJK V\n Ag'?-VEDA. ABOUT  YEARS\n\n~ TAP'A1\u00a7VA<rf1AMMA\n Aw!\/o.,;:;21js:~--iNA NAIK\n AGED'AB'OU'I' 38 YEARS\n\n' ;<'I3VE*.I*i'AHA1,L1 GRAMA\n\nPA}'\u00e9CHAYA'F MEMBER\n\nPAN' DAVAPU RA TALU K\n\nMANDYA DlSTRIC'I' -- 57'} 435\n\n(By Sri Ravi Varma Kumar. Sr. Counsel for\n\n. PEITITIONERS\n\nM\/s. Ravi Varma Kumar Asst:-3', Adm.)\n\n\/5;.\n\n\n\nAND:\n\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA\n\nREP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY\nVI 1) HANASOU D HA.\n\nBAN GALO RE- I\n\nTHE JOINT DIRECTOR\nIVHNES & GEOLOGY\n\nNO. 187. I1'I'H MAIN   ~\n\nSARASV\\\u00ab'A'I'I-II PURAM\nIVEYSO RE 570009\n\nSENIOR GEOLOGIST\nMENES 81 GEOLOGY\nMANDYA 571 432\n\nTHE THASILDAR V  ;\nPANDAVAPURA TALUK_1' '\nMANDYA 5701. 43:;  \n\nK B13'r1'AI~IAItL-E' GRAMA PAN 'c:1.;:{'A5.2A<:'......7\n\nREP BY ms :3_\u00a3;_CRE.f_1"ARYz \nPA1vDAV2\u00e9.PU'i\u00e9;\u00e9."<rALU'K0\n1:3\/IANDYA7DViSafI""57 1A35___ .\n\nM'\/s'. sH1vA_d11\u00a7LAs-s\u00a7jc1A'1'Es\nNO.ESl_7.j r?1Rs'_1' I+'1.oQr;<-\n\nV NEW KAN*1ARAJ URS' ROAD.\n NEAR VIJAYA BANK.\n\n' KLIVE,MPU NAGAR'\n\nM'.fsQRE,_--23\n\n. RESPONDENTS\n\n  D Vijayakumar. AGA for R1-R4;\n\nSri N R Girish, Adv. for R5:\n\n '  L M Chidanandayya. Adv, for R6]\n\nV G _ W..r2f1'1' PE'1'ITi()NS 1211.30 UNDER ARTICLE 226<\/a>\/227<\/a> OF\n\"\u00abE.O'_'iTI%I:}:\"#\"gC0NS'l'I'FU'FION OE' 1NI:a:A PRAYING TO QUASH THE\n . '1':y:i>i\u00e9!(;NED QUARRING LEASE) DEED BEARING NQ683 ANNEXA\n\n V.  DT. 29.7.04 EXECLETED BY THE 3RD RESPONDEZNT IN\n\nFAVOUR OF 6TH RESPONDENT.\n\nThese writ. pemions Comirlg on for diCt3.t',ing Orders. on\n\nthis day, NAGARATHNA. J, made {he i'<)\u00a7\u00a7()w1'r1g.I{:A 52)\n\nI\n\n9\/':-\n\n\n\n-4-\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Though the matters were posted for COI1Sld\u20acI’El'[‘3;’:C’)’fi,.Oi’<\/p>\n
Misc. W. 10239 of 2009 for temporary inj’unct.ion~;—-Wi\u00bbth_i’<\/p>\n
consent of counsel on both sides. the writ.rpet~i.tion1s haye~ _ <\/p>\n
been heard finally and disposed of can  ‘7<\/p>\n
2. These writ petitions alrelfiled thy waysoii”a–…ptiblic 2 L’<\/p>\n
interest litigation by   Village,
\nPandavapura Taluk. seelfziiig a two fold
\nprayer i.e.,  deeds at
\nAnnexures–__A~   of’; the order dated\n<\/p>\n
27. l2.2v_QQ’8V.   produced at
\nAnnext1–re~’E:   7.l.2009 Passed by the<\/p>\n
third respondent Vprod.n\u00e9:ed_.’*at, Annexure~F.<\/p>\n
”   to”‘ti”1’eV petitioners, they are the permanent<\/p>\n
 oVf..t::\\?addai~aha1li Village. Pandavapura Taluk,<\/p>\n
M’andyav_  and are eaking out their livelihood by<\/p>\n
agriculture: that Sy. No.80 of Vaddarahalli Village which<\/p>\n
‘*l:V’_rnes;sures about 129 acres 24 guntas was originally gomal<\/p>\n
iand meant for Cattle grazing and that out of the said extent.<\/p>\n
61.33 guntas was handed over to the forest department for<\/p>\n
:%<\/p>\n
development’: of sociai forestry. \/,<\/p>\n
-10-<\/span><\/p>\n
adversely impacted: that innumerable representations for<\/p>\n
cancellation of the lease were made by the \\~’illagers””i–o the<\/p>\n
Talisildar and subsequently the Tahsildar withdyrelwilylltlailea.lno<\/p>\n
objection certificate’. Similarly. the Gram Panclvijayat <\/p>\n
also withdrawn the licence. Such oi\u00b0de’i-s of’lwithrli’awals’–hayc<\/p>\n
not been challenged and the licenycingil aut,l1ori’ty <\/p>\n
Senior Geologist also car1celle_d”~~.1,he lease   dated’<\/p>\n
27.11.2008 which was _,.C.l’1all\u20acl’\u00a21\u00bbg’\u20acCl’:lFl la\u00bbrevision-petition. but
\nthe Villagers were not l1e’a1’d’ir’it._the revision’ proceedings and
\nneither has tlierebeen  ‘l”dE1\u20ac.I”\u20ac’1′,1:CQ rnade to the objections
\nraised by the piibli_c.’_on’ t.lfle_ Sq-uai?i*yi–rig operations.<\/p>\n
16. He has ‘draw-.’ri:1..ociir”attention to various annexures in<\/p>\n
support oi’l’i’~’:’_ly’1leiv abo_ve\u00a5.sub:missions and has said that the<\/p>\n
 &_ SiXl_h’3’\u00ab:F6S;i3endent’h\u00aba.s…n\u00abot responded to the Senior Geologists<\/p>\n
 notice to”it<re:ga_1'ding the licence issued under the Indian<\/p>\n
EiiblolsivesSkftcltrciit He has also referred to two unreported<\/p>\n
'V decislionsinlsupport of his submissions.<\/p>\n
 S:-Per contra, counsel for sixth respondent has stated<\/p>\n
    the Tahsildar gave a report that quarrying operations<\/p>\n
would be conducted in barren land and thereafter a<\/p>\n
notification was issued and subsequently the lease deed was<\/p>\n
executed: that there have been no coni1pl.ain1.s from the year<\/p>\n
It<\/p>\n
M',<\/p>\n
"W<\/p>\n
-11.”\n<\/p>\n
2004 till the latter half of the year 2008. but it is only a
\nmotivated writ petition which has been filed through the<\/p>\n
villagers in order to destroy the business of the.f”–\u00absi}:th<\/p>\n
respondent in which about. Rs. 11 crores has  ‘
\nafter borrowing from financial insti.tution_s.Wl”
\nstated that the blasting operations iisidlone~.on.ly <\/p>\n
thrice in a Week and for 20~25″rI}inute~s only  thatul’<\/p>\n
since the local MLA’s brothery_i_slial_sov.carryingvpniiluariying
\nbusiness, this writ peti–t’.i:onA tiled against the
\nsixth respondent. V I~ie:.h;ic:;..    are more
\nthan 90  when there has
\nbeen  the said quarries, the sixth
\ni-espoiiderttlliasl out with an oblique motive. He<\/p>\n
has irefeyrreda to two reports of National institute of Rock<\/p>\n
 lP~EiRM} tomstate that the ground vibrations are not<\/p>\n
   from the quarry. He has also drawn our<\/p>\n
attentiovn  the cornmunication between the Tahsildar,<\/p>\n
l”~Senior’ Qeologist and the Deputy Commissioner who has also
\n to NIRM. lie has stated that. the quarry has given<\/p>\n
 efnployrnent to more than 200 people and that any<\/p>\n
independent investigation agency may be appointed with
\nregard to the damage caused to the houses in Vaddarahalli<\/p>\n
village and depending upon the said report. the sixth<\/p>\n
y\/’\/’<\/p>\n
.,.,\u00ab:\n<\/p>\n
-12_<\/p>\n
respondent is ready to pay compensation. He has also<\/p>\n
brought to our notice circular dated 24.2.1999 <\/p>\n
quarrying lease in the land not used for pasturage.olo”alld V’
\ngranted but there was a public interest. 4litigat,io4n”ichallenging
\nthe said circular which resulted in <\/p>\n
Bench of this court and the.re’aftier the saidv.Vcir_c’ula1i’:was”d<\/p>\n
withdrawn and the sarne wasV_.chlal.1ei1ged  petition
\nand the learned single  withdrawal of the<\/p>\n
circular. He hasaalso dirawnionr’ at1._e11t:ion&”l:ol rule W\u00bb 8A of the<\/p>\n
rules and the %:_irc5i;in1stances_Vu11_dei wiiich it is applicable.<\/p>\n
18. It.”‘”is\u00ab._aI;S0iifksubnzitted  counsel for sixth
\nrespoiident operations has provided<\/p>\n
employi11enlit\u00ab<.,to'v the vlillagers and it is also stated that an<\/p>\n
 \u00ab_ indfsfieiideiwt ageAn'ey…may be appointed to submit a report on<\/p>\n
 the"qouarryiriggoperations and if on account of the blasting<\/p>\n
openratioiisfijiftpthere has been any damage caused to the<\/p>\n
'V houses andllouildings, then compensation would be paid for<\/p>\n
l f the' said damage.\n<\/p>\n
  pp  Additional Government. Advocate drew our attention to<\/p>\n
 the fact that the reference made to the Deputy Controller of<\/p>\n
Explosives and his report is awaited and that the quarrying<\/p>\n
\/E\/4.\n<\/p>\n
\n
\u00abKid<\/p>\n
_ 33 _
\noperations is causing damage to the houses in the viliage in<\/p>\n
question.\n<\/p>\n
20. In reply. learned senior counsel on
\npetitioners refuted the fact that there has bee_n]_’no   b
\nmade till mid 2008. He h.as stated[:thabt:Ath:ereT have <\/p>\n
petitions which have been fi1ed_objec’t–iAng–to the-tiqtjlvarryingdd’<\/p>\n
the vicinity of the village in quejs’t.ijo:*; and been
\nno whisper before any  to the
\nlocal MLA setting’ up    the first time
\nthat such a su*b1:ii\u00a3i_ssion=A,_has’  this court.<\/p>\n
21.     submissions regarding
\nenvironrnental  of the operation with the<\/p>\n
quarry. in qu.es.tion.7′<\/p>\n
  drawn our attention to Ruie 97 of the<\/p>\n
 Revenue Rules and stated that there has<\/p>\n
been nodorzcier with regard to the reduction of the pasturage<\/p>\n
.   made in the instant case and that Rule 97 read with Section
\n‘ i”of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act are appiicable which<\/p>\n
 * -wnandate a statutory order and that in the instant case no<\/p>\n
\u20ac<\/p>\n
such order has been made. \/4-\n<\/p>\n
\n
-14-<\/span><\/p>\n
23. Having heard counsel on both sides. the following<\/p>\n
points arise for our consideration:\n<\/p>\n
i. Whether the lease granted in favour oii the=l_lfs..i\u00a7\u00e9:t–h___ _<\/p>\n
respondent ought to be quashed in viewthe 11911;” <\/p>\n
compliance of sections 71. 72._read)}vitl1. s’ectior1V:’68’=efA<\/p>\n
the Karnataka Land Reveriue Act:.,_ H364 aridf_i?:u_le  of <\/p>\n
the said Rules’?\n<\/p>\n
ii. Whether grant of llease ‘b.y7t:l1e_second, respondent in
\nfavour of the -sixth respondenfphas “;est.1lted in adverse
\nenvironnientaillgpirripact’-.calling for interlerence in the<\/p>\n
rrnatter?’ H <\/p>\n
24. lt isulnot. in Vdisputeiptthat the licences issued in respect<\/p>\n
 oi’ ‘t\ufb01tif quarries “i~’n,Vque.stior1 is in gomal lands. Under the<\/p>\n
‘circui11sta.nee’S*.v__the procedure for issuance of licences in<\/p>\n
   have to be complied with by the<\/p>\n
auth’oritie.s.concerned. In this context. it would be relevant<\/p>\n
it toriadverlt. to the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue<\/p>\n
 “x1964 as well as the Rules made thereunder as also the<\/p>\n
it W\ufb01ules 8[bI, 9. 11 and 12 of the KMMC rules.<\/p>\n
25. Sections 71 and 72 of the Karnataka Land Revenue<\/p>\n
Act, i964 and circular dated 24.2.1999 issued by the State<\/p>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
\n
_ 15 –\n<\/p>\n
Government. came up for consideration before the full Bench<\/p>\n
of this court in the case of ‘D C RAMESH AND OTHERS vs.<\/p>\n
STATE<\/a> or KARNATAKA AND OTHERS’ <\/p>\n
2003 KAR 3789. The circular was also considevredvvlppvi’ <\/p>\n
learned single Judge of this court in thee <\/p>\n
VENKATESHWARA HILL CRUsH1.\u00e9H_s”–.g_iND  <\/p>\n
THE STATE or KARNATAIM-v–.\u00e9:trD meme\u00bb ;:ep\u00a2it\u00a2e in V<\/p>\n
2008[3] KCCR 1329]. V  _ p\n<\/p>\n
28. Section 71 of the”‘–Ka1’natla:’+\u00a7:’a }’:J\u00e9ll’:i\u20acZ1AA”i?_\u20acVt’3l’lt1\u20ac Act deals<\/p>\n
with land that may  purpose and<\/p>\n
when assigne”dl5fsh_all.Vnot.be__ot_heiwise used without sanction
\nof the Deputy Conir:ni.ssioi.1’e-\u00ab:”\u00a7’ While section 72 deals with<\/p>\n
i”egulAat.i.on olttse’ot”pastu.rage. In the case of ‘D C RAMESH<\/p>\n
” V’  {O”I”HE1zS us.”s”TATE 01:’ KARNATAKA AND OTHERS’<\/p>\n
 e_repe’l%teei’-Le ritzzvizoos KAR 3789, the Full Bench held that a<\/p>\n
reading V.ot’T:seetion 71 makes it clear that the Deputy<\/p>\n
V’-\u00bb.Con1m’issi~oner has power to set apart lands belonging to the<\/p>\n
 St:atefC’:overnment which are not in lawful occupation for free<\/p>\n
 p\u00e9tstu.rage or for forest reserves or for any other public:<\/p>\n
purpose and the said lands set apart cannot be used
\notherwise without the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner.<\/p>\n
Section 72 regttlales use of pasturage only by the villagers to<\/p>\n
5;\n<\/p>\n
\/”\/”\n<\/p>\n
\n
-16-<\/span><\/p>\n
which the lands are assigned by the rules and orders_i.s_sued
\nby the State Government and in case of any (ifi’:3:}v3.’i;’,:.'(_.”f;’._..t’i.’.1A’\u20ac
\ndecision of the Deputy Commissioner is final.<\/p>\n
27′. Further, while scrutinizing thertwo\u00e9 decisvi\u00e9ons\u00e9rendered<\/p>\n
by the division Bench in the case  <\/p>\n
OTHERS vs. STATE AND 0-fangs’ A1.'<;'pQ1't'\u20acV,fd'-ViIi':._ILeR' 2001" '<\/p>\n
KAR 2363 and in the.caseVAiofu:"K  AND
\nOTHERS vs. STATE   AND OTHERS'
\nrendered in wp\u00e9 :'\\1'0v.__2s2fa5'\/1   em 29.1 1.2000,
\nwhich is a  the circuiar
\ndated 23'4."2'. that a circular or a
\nGovei'nfr_1ei;it  the same ei'fect of conveying<\/p>\n
guidelines it for considAe~rati.on. of an application for grant or<\/p>\n
 A' renV_e'x'3*ata1: of qV'L1arr\u00a7iiig..i.i.e'ence according to the fact situation of<\/p>\n
 'eac'h. ecas_e*ir'1'\u00abvaccordance with law and that the circular dated<\/p>\n
2?%,.2';~i9Q9~.v-Vgaisviissued pursuant to the decision of the<\/p>\n
j Gove'i"nrneni:" to provide opportunity for quarrying in<\/p>\n
 "..:'.pas1'.uArage land covered with large granite and hard rocks<\/p>\n
 which circular was issued in modification of the earlier<\/p>\n
" Wci1'culars.\n<\/p>\n
28. In the case of ‘SR1 VENKATESHWARA HILL<\/p>\n
CRUSHERS AND ANOTHER Us. THE STATE OF
\nii.\n<\/p>\n
\/\/fw’<\/p>\n
-17″\n<\/p>\n
KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER’ reported in 2008 [3] KCCR<\/p>\n
1329], a learned single Judge of this court eonsidered_rtl_ie<\/p>\n
validity of the Circulars issued by the State <\/p>\n
prohibiting the grant or renewal of quarry iiiigomalll  <\/p>\n
lands and held that only such of thosle.lgonialhlilyandlsu<\/p>\n
can no longer be classified asgonial lands on ;ie’eoun1 of the <\/p>\n
sanie being largely covered  rocrian\ufb02and not fit as
\ngornal land and on   lanvdslx that the
\nauthorities could take AAst_e:l’ps_   granting of
\nquarrying   However, it
\ndoes not   eXpi’ess provisions of the
\n  coniers jurisdiction on
\nthe   set apart the lands for free<\/p>\n
paste.-rage for ainygiveri village is in any way curtailed.<\/p>\n
  decisions would have to be read in the<\/p>\n
  71 and 72 of the Karnataka Land<\/p>\n
Reyenue ‘Act read with rule 9714] of the Karnataka Land<\/p>\n
  Reuenuve Rules. Rule 9714} provides for free pasturage for the<\/p>\n
ratltle of each village and the same enables the Deputy<\/p>\n
it ‘””Corn1nissioner to reduce the pasturage below the prescribed<\/p>\n
limit if he is of the opinion that the area already set apart is
\nmuch larger than what is really required and such rejection
\ncan only be aller Oblalllliig prior perinission of the l.’)ivisional<\/p>\n
Z,<\/p>\n
.,.\u00bb\/\ufb02y,’<\/p>\n
-18″\n<\/p>\n
Commissioner. The proviso to sub-rule [4] of rule 97 of the<\/p>\n
Karnataka Land Revenue Rules states that no V.-‘.~’3’uCh<\/p>\n
permission is required where the rejection bel.olw.”h”–the<\/p>\n
prescribed limit is for the purpose of [al dtstribL1~i’.ionVoihliiohtise V’<\/p>\n
sites to the siteless persons and 1b}Vgram.. of  persons~..<\/p>\n
belonging to scheduled caste and <\/p>\n
agricultural purposes who are\u00ab.__oi=dinarii\u00a7,r__ residerits”‘of such ”<\/p>\n
village and {C1 regulationto LiVr1au.t’hoi’ized cultiv.at;j,.on under
\nchapter–XlII-A. Therefore;   contemplated under
\nrule 9714] oi:    Rules is
\nmandatory not followed, the<\/p>\n
lease g.ranted’vJould3lnot in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
30. Keeping ,   the aforesaid decisions and<\/p>\n
 partiieula’rly ‘~pro_cedL1re contemplated under Rule 97 of<\/p>\n
~th”e  __Land Revenue Rules and on perusal of the<\/p>\n
rnaterial’o’_n._ record. we find that. there ha.s been no order<\/p>\n
passedhunder Rule 97 of the aforesaid rules while granting<\/p>\n
it perrnissiori for quarrying operations in the instant case.<\/p>\n
“thlough the Talisildar has given his no objection to the sixth<\/p>\n
it “resporident. AI1I1\u20ac3Xiii’\u20ac:-G is the RTC in respect of Sy. No.80<\/p>\n
which shows that it is gomal land and is in the possession of
\nthe forest departnierit. and ihe same measures 67.38 acres<\/p>\n
out of which 61.31 acres is vvitlt the {crest department. The<\/p>\n
.\u00ab*”(.\u00ab’<\/p>\n
32.<\/p>\n
a.fore;said_ exterrl _oflgo1rial land for the purpose of setting it
\nin the ivristarit case. Also, there is no material forthcoming<\/p>\n
violation of the aforesaid provisions of law:<\/p>\n
-20-<\/span><\/p>\n
application. Any other int:erpret”at.ion to mean<\/p>\n
that no notification is required jor the grant of-=__
\nvirgin. quarry, would only lead to ttnreasonable.._
\nand arbitrary exercise of power attracting Artirsle.  .i
\n14 of the Constitu.t’ion of India, and therejor’e”‘the~ ..  ;_.
\nsame has to be discouraged. because itjwould<\/p>\n
be difficult for a person interested .\n<\/p>\n
knowledge as to the availabilityrrofglandjorgrant  _
\nof lease without any notif’it;ation,g ttniessi’s_uCh<.__
\ninterested person has links"-gwi–th" bureaucrats.\u00bb "<\/p>\n
and has sources to C1(,'Cj_LtiI'e the 'sarne,.v~E9\u00ab:cept
\nwhere the State propose
\napplications on priority prescribed" under Ritle
\n12(t}{i) to {vi}. in__all other _circ'u.mstan"ces,H even
\nwhere the select'ton~..of the appl.i'catfions_fall under
\n'all others' categoryvtattrocting Rtile._il2{I){uii}, the
\nonly reasonable option ii)ottld._-'bev–to _notify the
\narea available for""ptr.blic" auction want of
\ngttideiines"i.n"_'t:he Rulesto gioefprioriig among all
\nothers} Thegispower _conjer_rea.ttnder Rule 8~B of
\nthe F3ules'=h"as–V._to'"h'e_ excetfcisecl' with the close<\/p>\n
}:3'r'OXiFI1lll_j} to'fi.; "the–_ desiretiiiipttblic interest to
\naugm.en't" triQi'e\u00abreL'-enue to the State. "<\/p>\n
"fheiiefore, it uias .ne'e._essa.ry that an order reducing the<\/p>\n
the\ufb01purpose of quarry purposes had to be passed<\/p>\n
 'ij<:\u00a7\u00a7pi.1l}l'f'C'O\u00a5I1l"niSSi0I'1\u20acI' and which has not been done<\/p>\n
 '"\u00ab__l"'tlj1at ihe…procedure prescribed under the KMMC Rules has
\n lbeenfioiiowed in the instant, case.\n<\/p>\n
‘Under the circumstances, whiie answering point No.1,<\/p>\n
V we hold that the grant of licence in the instant. case is in<\/p>\n
,\/E:\/..\n<\/p>\n
to” constcier”*._titeu <\/p>\n
-21-<\/span><\/p>\n
34. That apart.. the other aspect. of the matter. namely.
\npoint No.2 for consideration is with regard to the<\/p>\n
environmental hazard that has been caused by the qi.ia’a:ry~i.11g<\/p>\n
operations. It is not in dispute that the sixth resp_:oi’1’de’r;–i..__ha_S{‘ _<\/p>\n
been using high explosives for mcarrying”‘v–o.t:i*tblhilasptiriig<\/p>\n
operations. Annexure-L shows photogi*a.phsa..with*- re~gardrV:.tol<\/p>\n
the cracks and damage in the hkousese.ol*vadd.araVh.a_lli <\/p>\n
which according to the petitio11VersLis_VVon acc.oiint, oi? the said
\noperations. There are.._:a-‘.so7_lph\u00a7otog.raplis which show the
\ndrying up of the tank  o’i’*~.thel..’jsettlernent of fine<\/p>\n
rock d.tiS’t1’\u00bbE1i;iC.:’. saidptanllr. ‘i’a’o.t..vt:)ei11g useful for drinking<\/p>\n
and agricultural ‘   * l<\/p>\n
35. ,–As far ._as~viniri-ing and quarrying operations and<\/p>\n
“”Aentriron.ment\u00abis coricerned. it is necessary to observe that<\/p>\n
 Iniafiing:’o–perat.i_o’iis are inherently hazardous in nature and it<\/p>\n
not_onIy  the natural resources. but also affects the<\/p>\n
iiving”7~the people around the mines. Further mining or<\/p>\n
“<d'_qtiar'ryi.ng activity close to township and villages have a<\/p>\n
tendency to degrade environment as it affects air. water, soil<\/p>\n
and impairs the quality of life of the inhabitants of the area<\/p>\n
and therefore. a greater responsibility is cast on the miners.<\/p>\n
In the context of having inirsing operations in the vicinity of<\/p>\n
,\/2\u00bb.\n<\/p>\n
\n
_ 22 IV’
\ntowns and villages. a due diligence exercise of the quantum<\/p>\n
and degree of pollution and the impact that a mining rtctivity<\/p>\n
would have on the inhabitants surrounding a pml_r1ee.wo;t1ldV.<\/p>\n
have to be done at the outset before giving’l”-a:ny:p’_kind  <\/p>\n
permission or grant viswa~vis ad miitin_g–, acti.vit\u00aby_.V <\/p>\n
regulatory authorities have to act.__ with utlmostv, ‘~care’–~iln~_u<\/p>\n
ensuring compliance with th’e–.j}a.rious=.safegt;;ards\u00a7l”claims it<\/p>\n
and standards by entrepxjeneitrs’;  to avoiddamagge to<\/p>\n
environment, natural resolu1’ces5.’ ;’pe_op.lv’e’1s” -life, health and<\/p>\n
property.\n<\/p>\n
36. In ‘tl1\u00a7..$\ufb02VCTf5’1’lttj\u00a7’3;’\u20ac; relevance to refer to a decision
\nof thel-.VApe2; Co”urt._p  MEHTA vs. UNION<\/a> or INDIA’
\nreported’  ‘”4016 wherein the concept of<\/p>\n
sustainable”deve.lopme_nt”‘has been explained. in the eontext<\/p>\n
  Zdeveloprnent ____ “activity wherein the principles of<\/p>\n
~spustainvableidevelopment are applied and at the same time<\/p>\n
,.1,;he__ is not degraded. According to the Apex<\/p>\n
Co~…i_rt, a. balance has to be struck in such matters. it is also<\/p>\n
 releva.nt.:\/tot note that if an activity is allowed to go ahead,<\/p>\n
2 .. there may be irreparable damage to the environment and if it<\/p>\n
is stopped there may be irreparable damage to economic<\/p>\n
ml.}1t’\u20acI’\u20acSl. in such cases. it is the protection of environment<\/p>\n
which should take precedence over economic interest<\/p>\n
yr\/’~*”\n<\/p>\n
\n
– 23 _
\naccording to t.he Apex Court. The precautionary principle<\/p>\n
accepted by the Apex Court in various dicta requires<\/p>\n
anticipatory action to be taken to prevent <\/p>\n
can be prevented even on a reasonable stispie-ion.and’  t’<\/p>\n
not necessary that there should be ‘diie<:t  vhiarrrr<\/p>\n
t.o the environment.\n<\/p>\n
37′. A mining lease holder tottvconiplir<\/p>\n
statutory provisions such as the–Enviro..nr11entt Protection Act.
\n1986 and the acts   and control of
\npollution of aii*,4’_vv’a1_.er. ro’i+\u00e9siVIi\u00a7ig}’,i..;;is_w\u00a711…;i;;”ihe rules framed
\nunder  –so”-that ali\ufb01ilossible precautions for the
\nprotecti–on’* of venviro.nri<ie4nti_:and'control of pollution is taken<\/p>\n
while corid.ucti.ng.aTniin.ing operation in an area. In<\/p>\n
 M.C;.:MEHTA'SV'tcase_____reier'red to supra, the Apex Court has<\/p>\n
~s:tat\u00a2hd .,Vti1at_Lt'i–n__ majority of the eases, the environment<\/p>\n
cori'cer'nts ignored by the mining community in order to<\/p>\n
maii:'e quick". profits. The mining operators would cause<\/p>\n
 disit;.urba"nce of l.and surfaeejdrainage pattern and iand use<\/p>\n
tbesidtes cause pollution probiems which wouid lead to<\/p>\n
" "-erivironrrierital problems of air. water and noise pollution and<\/p>\n
solid waste pol.l.utior1. Therefore. the Apex Court stiggested
\nthat short. term and long term action for restoration of<\/p>\n
E'.I1\\-'iI'(")1'l1'E'l(:'.1'"it quality of the area should be zprepared<\/p>\n
,\/'77..\n<\/p>\n
\n
.,24_<\/p>\n
separately. by the State Pollution Control Boards and<\/p>\n
Government Agencies for enforcement of the environryn-ental<\/p>\n
laws for the restoration of the environmental qualii..yd’o.f:’–t.he<\/p>\n
area. Monitoring programme should include ~frequen’eyl  ”<\/p>\n
monitoring air quality. water quality-,’ ‘gro–i1ynd-l_4wate’r’-and n_o,ise.c<\/p>\n
level etc. As far as protection of water..resources–.in<\/p>\n
areas are concerned. it was suggested ti1.at’i.n o_rd”er”to draw ”<\/p>\n
water resources managernentyplalne.it*is esse11vti.alyA..i;\u00a7o assess
\nthe water quality of the  of the Hydraulic
\nCycle i.e., stream}  Noise arising
\nout of   or controlled by<\/p>\n
the lessee Aaitlfthyeinksource so to keep it within the<\/p>\n
permissi’Dle”limi”t.s.A’  V’<\/p>\n
 \u00ab_ 38v:\u00bb~’~i.’ifhe in1bValanc_e’__&which has been caused to ecology and<\/p>\n
‘f,!l’l’\u20ac_VCGI1St3\u20ac{i1L(;Z’I1l”‘ hazard to the healthy environment due to<\/p>\n
raining Vop’je–rat;_i.ons was taken note of by the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
theta”   ‘RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT<\/p>\n
  DEHRADUN vs. STATE<\/a> or U.P.’ reported in AIR<\/p>\n
 SC 652. in that case certain lessees of limestone<\/p>\n
it “quarry was directed to close down their operations<\/p>\n
permanently. The question as to how the lessees were to be
\ncomperisated for Closing the mines. was answered by stating<\/p>\n
that it was the price that has to be paid for protecting and<\/p>\n
\/’Z’.\n<\/p>\n
\n
-25-<\/span><\/p>\n
safeguarding the right of the people to live in a healthy<\/p>\n
environment with minimal disturbance of ecological balance<\/p>\n
and without avoidable hazard to them and <\/p>\n
homes and agricultural lands and undue a_ft~ect’aiti.or1~.Vof.airs <\/p>\n
water and environment. At, the same titnfe, ldirect~iot’is-,,iWe.r.ef<\/p>\n
given to the State Governrnenit-._that iflessees\u00bb”barn\/:\u00a71’an;ted, <\/p>\n
then those whose business is\ufb01to be closed’ should be
\naccornrnodated. Concer’n”was_ aliso  for the workmen<\/p>\n
who were likely tobe  V <\/p>\n
39. There; “ha\u00a7.z\u00a27\u00bb.bt;eh f1′–:_i_:s’tanc’es.lV_’where the High Courts
\ntaking i:t_.h_e  the Apex Court in the
\naforemventi*oi1edllvd\u00e9Cision”have expressed opinion that where<\/p>\n
there is lindliscrin1in’ate,operation of mines, which have<\/p>\n
 proved h’a.zardotis_to natural wealth and environment then<\/p>\n
 uconrtsvhave no option but to intervene wherein even<\/p>\n
c-lohsureVoif”_’~mini’ng operation can also be ordered. Such a<\/p>\n
dechisionpwoiild be in line with and promote what is provided<\/p>\n
  tinder articles 48-A and 5l–A(g) of the Constitution of India<\/p>\n
 provide that the State as also the citizens are under<\/p>\n
it  obligation to preserve. safeguard and improve the forest,<\/p>\n
flora. fauna. rivers and lakes and all other water resources of<\/p>\n
w a K’ I”\n<\/p>\n
li(“3(3\u00a73iI1g the ecological batance unal’l’ect:.edLi.ask whichLnot<\/p>\n
the cotintry. Fttrther preservation oi’ the envirjnrnent tin;<\/p>\n
29\/\u00bb<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
-26-<\/span>
\nei5’5-\n<\/p>\n
onlylgovernmenti. but also every citizen must undertake. It is<\/p>\n
a social obligation and a fundamental duty as enshririedeyin<\/p>\n
Article 51~<\/a>A(g} of the Constitution. Therefore expi’o’it:atio:nii’ <\/p>\n
mineral resources may be in the interest of ind–uVstrival=.grow1h”  <\/p>\n
of the country, yet, mines should not  <\/p>\n
they disturb the ecology or aifect the._livelihoo*ldA.and <\/p>\n
condition of the people surroundi’ngx,f’the miriesl <\/p>\n
40. There have been   Apex Court and
\nother High Cot;.rts.__in   ivoflglered for total
\nstoppage oi} :\u00a7–perlei_aie’1a..s5 in  LITIGATION AND
\n  OF U.P.’ reported in
\nAIR  Court’. directed total stoppage of<\/p>\n
mining op’e.1jati,ons._ lie:  CEMENT LTD. vs. STATE<\/a> or<\/p>\n
 p_ U.1?;.{. rveportedx’i’11.Vl(19Q3) suppm sec 571, the Apex Court<\/p>\n
 not ‘perTnit_ the cement factory to be run in the valley<\/p>\n
where niilriingzloperations in relation to limestone quarries<\/p>\n
stood sltoppled. The only direction that was given was to<\/p>\n
  aciconimodate the petitioner~factory at some other place. in<\/p>\n
 QUARRY WORKS vs. STATE OF GUJARAT<\/a>‘<\/p>\n
it “reported in AIR 1987 SC .1073, the application seeking<\/p>\n
renewal oi’ a lease after the enforcement of Forest
\n(Conservation) Act<\/a>, 1980 was disallowed. In ‘INDIAN<\/p>\n
COUNCIL FOR ENVIROLEGAL ACTION vs. UNION OF<\/p>\n
Z\u00e9e.\n<\/p>\n
\n
_ 31 W
\npeak particle velocity of 5 min\/ s is recommended as safe for<\/p>\n
the structures in Vadderahalli village.<\/p>\n
44. In another report at AnneXure~R18 given by Dr–..___V R<\/p>\n
Sastry, Professor of Mining Engineering & Dean.<\/p>\n
Institute of Ecology. Karnataka, it is stated.-.4’tiia\u00a7t.:Vu.s’ei  V’<\/p>\n
explosive energy to fragment therockygmassv\u00e9linfmiiiesr is<\/p>\n
associated with adverse side effects li}ie”g1’ou*n_d .vib1’ati*o.ns;:<\/p>\n
air blast and \ufb02y rock. The  vibrations’Vd.an1age ” it<\/p>\n
to structures and annoyance to _re_sid_ents i1’1–.rieiAgiibour’ing
\nareas in case the intensity is above. tliefthresliold values. Fly<\/p>\n
rock can cause deamageto’str’uctt:_res in t.ht{–.\/ieinity and may<\/p>\n
result in fatal accident, ifa.pi*oper care is not taken. in some
\ncases, Ilyu”\u00bbi_fod(:k lp_1’oble’in._”_.’e’may lead to closure of quarry<\/p>\n
ope\u00bb1*a_tioris due ‘”to_danf1age involved. In the context of sixth<\/p>\n
\u00bbrespondent,o\u00a7;.erating the granite quarry for the supply of<\/p>\n
<:ruslied"'_stoi1,e"V material for construction activities in<\/p>\n
Pari4davaApdi"a Taluk is concerned, it is stated that the cycie of<\/p>\n
operations in the quarry consists of drilling, blasting,<\/p>\n
Riaoadirig, transporting and crushing. It is noted that there is<\/p>\n
t it '"'difference in elevation of 30 to 40 metres between quarry and<\/p>\n
the village. village being at a lower elevation and therefore it
\nis advised that the blastin the quarry should therefore be<\/p>\n
planned in such a way that t.l1e1'e  no effect. of ground<\/p>\n
\/"1 \u00e9<\/p>\n
-32-<\/span><\/p>\n
vibrations and fly rock on the domestic structures of<\/p>\n
Vadderahalli village. As far as ground Vibration-share<\/p>\n
concerned. it is stated that if they have sufficientf_’en’er\u00a7\u00a73-ii  _<\/p>\n
can cause damage to structures. If the seve1’~’~ity:’osi’ the\u00ab.blast’~..<\/p>\n
vibrations increases there can
\nbuilding in the following ways;\n<\/p>\n
Dustfalling from oldlipldster  ‘ <\/p>\n
Extension Q”)’7Q_id. plzislt’er.:lc:’rdl’c.’\u00ab:_s it<\/p>\n
New plasterllcraekforinatiod   .\n<\/p>\n
Ptaslt\u00e9\ufb01-“drop._ ini iarge”‘arecis .\n<\/p>\n
.<hS\ufb01:*=P\u00b0\u00a5'\u00b0-3<\/p>\n
\u00abT;  -. Ejj.;rthe\u00a7{:.;seoere'danittge' to building"\n<\/p>\n
45. It\ufb02is’ 4sta.tedlf~in’qeategorical terms that the human<\/p>\n
pe1’ceptionlliol_’V ground iribra.~tion is as low as 1 rnrn\/s. Certain<\/p>\n
 recoinnieiidyations’\u00abwere made with regard to the blasting<\/p>\n
 ‘opleration’st liilll\u00e9f’ said report.\n<\/p>\n
 aforesaid reports. we do not find any<\/p>\n
‘V rnateli-ial”l.aw.hlich states that the standards issued by the<\/p>\n
ll_*,Poiiliu_tionl Control Board vis~a–vis quarrying activity in<\/p>\n
—  tjuestion have been complied with by the sixth respondent.<\/p>\n
it ”’On the other hand, there is a categorical condition stipulated<\/p>\n
that the quarry should be closed down in case of any<\/p>\n
x?\u00bb<\/p>\n
 * assistaiiee .  A,<\/p>\n
_ 33 _
\ncomplaints of public or nearby residents. Though initially
\nthe Senior Geologist. gave a report on certain aspects of the
\nquarry prior to the cormnencemem. subsequently it is___seen<\/p>\n
that the Tahsildar. Pandavapura, K Bet.tahalljiV”–.:._Granj<\/p>\n
Panchayat have given reasons for withdrawal of..A4″1″}–o  ‘<\/p>\n
certificate issued in favour of the sixth_4res.po’nVden;i  0″‘<\/p>\n
Senior Geologist also issued show cause “notice ffour’–~_the<\/p>\n
cancellation of the tease andf._s”u.bsequ’ent1y_  datedv 0′<\/p>\n
27.11.2008 directed that ail minifrigpaciivitjk hevvstorfiped with
\nimmediate effect citing ‘t;hVe?.damagt: to the houses in<\/p>\n
Vadderahalli xrillage an:dl”ii’i\u20ac.:’BdV’i3i’SE’  of rock dust on<\/p>\n
sur1’ou._ndingfff’ and fodder. Under the
\ncirc’urnst’ances,’ we’–j.’are”—.o.f*the considered View that the<\/p>\n
reports _relied., upon fbythe sixth respondent are of no<\/p>\n
  that the Tahsildar has withdrawn the ‘no<\/p>\n
ot)jeuct.io’na certificate’ issued in favour of the sixth respondent<\/p>\n
aside-perV}\\nnexure–P dated 30.9.2008 though reference has<\/p>\n
‘hbeenfrnade to the ‘no objection certificate’ issued on 9.7.2004<\/p>\n
00 “and the licence issued on 6.9.2008 and there is a reference<\/p>\n
also to the letter dated 21.8.2006 written to the Senior
\nGeologist, explaining the harm caused on account of the<\/p>\n
mining aet.ivity and letter dated 6.9.2008 requesting for<\/p>\n
M.”\/t<\/p>\n
-35-<\/span><\/p>\n
is dated 1.12.2008. The report of the gram panchayat on<\/p>\n
this aspect of the matter is at Annexure–J.<\/p>\n
48. Annexure ~\u00a5 L to L23 are photographs  ”\n<\/p>\n
damage caused to the houses of Vad’dara.hal’i_i V_illlage. lWlh.ile~.t it<\/p>\n
Pmnexures ~ M to M37 are photographs–A.A_d’epictin;.g-the <\/p>\n
tank and surrounding areas of .aridVVA-nn’e;Xure-“N is ” V<\/p>\n
a copy of the represemationpsldatepd. l’l~4p.7.\ufb01OG6_  said
\nrepresentation is made to the  Taluk.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter, the the licence
\nas per   Senior Geologist
\nat Mand3’a.has:lstat:ed_  being used to make holes
\nor   explosives are being used for<\/p>\n
quarryinglaet.ivit3t’whieh i:s’_.’eeausin.g damage to public life and<\/p>\n
 13ropertyI* l–lel’lhasvvrel”erred to the ‘l’ahstldar”s letter dated<\/p>\n
 20{l8’\u00ab.to.’VA:s’tat.e that the trenches at the mining spot on<\/p>\n
 ‘olI’ythe.”u.se of high capacity explosives have caused<\/p>\n
darnage~–l:to”t”he houses at Vaddarahalli Village and the same<\/p>\n
  hasbeen videographed: that complaints have been received<\/p>\n
llfroinj the villagers with regard to the rock dust settling on<\/p>\n
 ‘””agi*ic’ultural lands which has affected cultivation of the said<\/p>\n
lands and that show cause notice was issued to the sixth
\nrespondent to which reply was given; that there has been
\n\\:’l{)l’c1′{‘,lO1″1 of section 18<\/a>[8]. [E01, 36[2] [3] and 6E2} of the<\/p>\n
z\u00a7,,.,,,<\/p>\n
X .\u00bb<\/p>\n
-86-<\/span><\/p>\n
KMMC Rules and that when spot inspection was conducted<\/p>\n
along with the Tahsildar. Pandavapura. drilling by ring—bore<\/p>\n
machine was found in the quarrying spot and <\/p>\n
“l’ahsi1dar has withdrawn the ‘no objection lette~.r.l’:.:”’a ”<\/p>\n
Senior Geologist, found that on aecou–nt  ‘l:.aforesaid~.i<\/p>\n
violations and in public interest, tithe. fninirig’licenee’*.b’e–..<\/p>\n
cancelled with effect. from 27.   and __with a dtrectiojn to ” it<\/p>\n
remove the machinery being roused’-l’or.._minirigvfroth quarry<\/p>\n
lease area.\n<\/p>\n
49. The said l:;j;aiicelEat,ioi”{ll  ‘:.”c’h.al.l:enged before the<\/p>\n
revisional at1t.h_or_ity.2″ ‘1e1_ov?f’cv&e’1′;AAi’ it} is only the revisional
\naut.l1ority without’:’tal{ing*into coiisideratioii the reasons as to
\nwhy the licetlltringl”au’t:horiity had cancelled the licence focused<\/p>\n
its .att’.e11’t.io1i olniy. on the non–payment of the royalty by the<\/p>\n
  and subiect. to the payment. of the balance<\/p>\n
r.oy.afI.tyl.’l  the order of cancellation of licence by his<\/p>\n
order a’tV:1.\\riiiexure–E. In lact. a perusal of Ar1r1exure~E which<\/p>\n
  isvthe border of the Joint Director cum Revisional Authority<\/p>\n
dated 27.12.2008, no doubt relers to complaiiits made by<\/p>\n
it “the residents of Vaddarahalli village and the visual<\/p>\n
representation in form of CDs and the scieiitific investigation<\/p>\n
report carried out by the 0rgani?.aI.io11 of the (}overnrnent. of<\/p>\n
-37-<\/span><\/p>\n
India. but without referring to the contents of the same, t.he
\nrevisional authority simply states as follows:<\/p>\n
“During the course of hearing. the nonpayment
\nhuge amount. of royalty arrears was obsemedforv\ufb02’–_:
\nwhich the learned Advocate prayed the  :”\n<\/p>\n
Authority to give sufficient time as the 4.<\/p>\n
is running in financial  ‘i–l.ot\u00ab.qeuerl:_”
\ncounsel has agreed to pay  ouistlanciing’ it A
\narrears of Rs.66,29,O4″7_\/~.._Vbefore xIestoiraltio\u00a7n..\/_VQf
\nquarry leases and the balantee will  within<\/p>\n
thefinancial year”end.”  * <\/p>\n
50. On the basis oflthe fsai’cij:’subri1i.ss~ion, the revision<\/p>\n
petit.io,jil\\i\\lrasi’ direetion to collect 50% of the
\noutstanding- alrrearsioftt’r0\u00a7ra\u00bbl.ty’ only after which the files were<\/p>\n
to be_pr0CessVecir,forrestoration of quarry lease and the<\/p>\n
  to t>e””Colleeted before the end of the financial<\/p>\n
 A further direction was given to the<\/p>\n
co’rif_:ljil>et:en.t:tiauithority i.e., the Senior Geologist to make<\/p>\n
l”.__freque*nt”:risits to the quarry sites to ensure that the sixth<\/p>\n
“\u00ab:”res1:$ondent was following the recommendations of<\/p>\n
it i\u00a7l3;1RM\/NITK scrupulously and that it would adhere to the<\/p>\n
KMMC Rules. ‘i’he1*eafter, vide Annexure~F dated 7.1.2009.<\/p>\n
the quarry leases were reslorecl by the third respondent –<\/p>\n
Senior Geologist.\n<\/p>\n
\n
-38-<\/span><\/p>\n
51. We are of the \\-‘i\u20acW t.hat the revisional authority has not<\/p>\n
applied it.s mind to the reason for cancellation of t,he”li.c_’en’ce<\/p>\n
although initially the very same authority <\/p>\n
licence. Had the reasons been looked\u00bb into by’the’jre\u00a7fisi_ona.lV <\/p>\n
authority. the order at Annexure  i.’\\_fotiVldZn_o’t <\/p>\n
passed. In fact, Annexure–‘F  is a- letter by the <\/p>\n
third respondent to the seconyd___r’osp’o_ndent 16.12.2008
\nrefers to 264 COH1p1aiI1tS:’ii1a(3<3  held by the
\nvillagers of Vaddarahal].1-Village: niaterial has also<\/p>\n
been ignoredby  second:.respondent.""'"<\/p>\n
52.  is on:V\u20ac.record’_’ thatthe senior geologist issued
\nnotice underythe.yEi}\u00a7r)lobs’iVe’s\u00abAct as per AnneXure–K. But. the<\/p>\n
sixth –r.espon’de_nt’has failed to respond to the same.<\/p>\n
~   It is alsonecessary to not.e that: counsel for the sixth<\/p>\n
H   a statement at the Bar that: if an<\/p>\n
independent committee is constituted and in the event of<\/p>\n
 there being any “finding regarding damage caused to the<\/p>\n
 of the village in question. the sixth respondent. would<\/p>\n
it “be liable to pay compensation. This submission would not<\/p>\n
assist the sixth respondent for the reasons we have assigned<\/p>\n
during the course of this order. Monetary compensation is<\/p>\n
19:\u00bb<\/p>\n
not the re1’nedy in Stttfh cases.\n<\/p>\n
\n
-39-<\/span><\/p>\n
54. It is the duty of this court to take into consideration in<\/p>\n
appropriate cases when attention is drawn to coiieern;s._ovf<\/p>\n
persons in the vicinity of mines or quarries v’i7s_~2a–.v’is ‘<\/p>\n
daily living and also with regard iiolultlie. <\/p>\n
have sustained to the houses and l”-properti–\u20acs*.and,_”thVep_<\/p>\n
environmental threat they t’ace’v.._arid act in  vrith it<\/p>\n
law. It is in this context thati”poirit ‘No.2 isdalsouanswered<\/p>\n
against, the sixth respondent; it<\/p>\n
55. Apart   ‘itro’in~:the list of quarries
\nproduced   Government Advocate
\nthat 5’ of Vaddarahalli village
\npaiichayat, as on date there have been<\/p>\n
no com.plaints.,n1adve as such. However, it is only in respect of<\/p>\n
l”the”particular quarries in question that these writ petitions<\/p>\n
  ” However, that would not mean that the<\/p>\n
order p_a-sse\u00e9jd in these writ petitions would be only restricted<\/p>\n
 to the qirarrie-s in question.\n<\/p>\n
 The fact that there are about 90 quarries within<\/p>\n
V “”Pandavapura Taluk having been brought to our notice. we<\/p>\n
are of the considered view that the authority which has
\nissued licences in respect of the quarries mentioned in the<\/p>\n
said iist would also consider as to whether the quarrying<\/p>\n
‘\/w<\/p>\n
58.<\/p>\n
Writ. petitiorls are allowed.\n<\/p>\n
-41-<\/span><\/p>\n
Parties to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
AN\/-\n<\/p>\n
Rule is made absolixm.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Venkategowda S\/O. Timmegowda vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Chief … on 23 November, 2009 Author: V.Gopalagowda And B.V.Nagarathna I -1- IN T HE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALO__RE DA’I’I:1D THIS TI\u00bb-IE 23% DAY OF NOVEMBER. . PRESENT THE HONBLE MRJUSTICExr;vGoAPA’:;Af}bi\u00a2I[\u00a7A’_’_;_ V AND THE HONBLE MRs.JUS_T–LcE BA.”;’.NA_QAbRA’;T HNA w.p. No.9146-9162’\/\u00a33009’IGMQMM.\/As)_ […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-266957","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVenkategowda S\/O. Timmegowda vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Chief ... on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Venkategowda S\/O. Timmegowda vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Chief ... on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-15T21:04:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Venkategowda S\\\/O. Timmegowda vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Chief … on 23 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-15T21:04:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":5510,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Venkategowda S\\\/O. Timmegowda vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Chief ... on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-15T21:04:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Venkategowda S\\\/O. Timmegowda vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Chief … on 23 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Venkategowda S\/O. Timmegowda vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Chief ... on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Venkategowda S\/O. Timmegowda vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Chief ... on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-15T21:04:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Venkategowda S\/O. Timmegowda vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Chief … on 23 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-15T21:04:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009"},"wordCount":5510,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009","name":"Venkategowda S\/O. Timmegowda vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Chief ... on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-15T21:04:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-so-timmegowda-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-chief-on-23-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Venkategowda S\/O. Timmegowda vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Chief … on 23 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266957","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=266957"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266957\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=266957"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=266957"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=266957"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}