Karnataka High Court
M/S. Balaji Stone Crusher vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:16937
WP No. 3523 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 3523 OF 2025 (KLR-LG)
BETWEEN:
M/S BALAJI STONE CRUSHER,
A FIRM OF PARTNERS,
REGISTERED UNDER
THE INDIAN PARTINERSHIP ACT, 1932
REP. BY ITS PARTNER-R.K.PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
No.337, RAMOHALLI, KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560074.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA G.KOLLE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN
KUMAR R 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location:
HIGH
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
COURT OF R.No.320, 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001.
Email: [email protected]
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,
ROOM No.135, FIRST FLOOR,
VIKASA SOUDHA.,
BENGALURU-560 001.
Email: [email protected]
3. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:16937
WP No. 3523 of 2025
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (LAND GRANT-i)
MULTI STORIED BUILDINGS,
NEXT TO VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
Email:[email protected]
4. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB),
4TH & 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING,
KHANIJ BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
REP. BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
& THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & THE CHAIRMAN,
DISTRICT STONE CRUSHERS LICENSING
AND REGULATION AUTHORITY
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BEHIND
KANDAYA BHAVANA., D.C.OFFICE COMPOUND,
K.G.ROAD., BENGALURU-560009.
Email: [email protected]
6. THE MEMBER SECRETARY & THE SENIOR
GEOLOGIST
DISTRICT STONE CRUSHERS LICENSING &
REGULATION AUTHORITY,
13TH FLOOR, V.V.TOWERS, AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
BENGALURU-560001
Email: [email protected]
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.SHIVA REDDY., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI. P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE GOVT. ORDER BEARING No.KAM.E 705 LGB 2012, BENGALURU DATED 25.10.2012 ISSUED BY R-3 UNDER SECRETARY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, AS THE SAME -3- NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 IS DISCRIMINATIORY, WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE CIRCULAR DATED 04/10/2012 ISSUED BY THE R-1 CHIEF SECRETARY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B, ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CAV ORDER
1. This writ petition has been presented on 04.02.2025 whereby a modification to a Government Order dated 04.10.2012 made on 25.10.2012 is being called in question.
2. The Government Order dated 04.10.2012 related to the location of stone crushers in the safer zones under the provisions of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (for short, 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder.
3. Originally, Clause (5) of the Government Order dated 04.10.2012 reads as follows: -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 "D.O.No. CI/18/MMN/2012 Date: 04/10/2012 IMMEDIATE CIRCULAR Sub: Locating stone crushers in the safer zones under the Karnataka Regulation of Stone crushers Act 2011 and Rules, 2012 Ref: Notes issued from Secretary (Commerce & Industries) No. CI 18 MMN 2012, dated 25/06/2012 and 28/06/2012 As communicated to all the Deputy Commissioners, there is an urgent need to identify 'safer zones' for running of stone crusher units in the state. Contempt proceedings have been initiated against the state by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for not locating stone crushers in the 'safer zones'. This matter therefore needs immediate attention of all the Deputy Commissioners, as they are the Licensing Authority under the Act. The following steps need to be taken urgently.
(i) xxx
(ii) xxx
(iii) xxx
(iv) xxx
(v) In respect of government land identified as 'safer zone', land should be allotted on -5- NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 lease basis, with the condition that the lease rental based on market price as advised by the Revenue Department along with the development and infrastructure charges shall be payable by the licensees. Every stone crusher unit should be allotted at least 1 acre of land, with clear demarcation, and with clear approach."
4. Thus, the Circular basically stated that wherever the Government lands had been identified as safer zones, the same should be allotted on a lease basis with the condition that the lease rentals should be based on the market price as advised by the Revenue Department along with the development and infrastructure charges, which should be paid by the licencees.
5. This Circular dated 04.10.2012 was modified twenty-
one days thereafter i.e., on 25.10.2012 and Clause (5) was substituted by another Government Order, as follows:
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 "PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ £ÀqÀªÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ: PÀ®ÄèUÀt WÀlPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄgÀQëvÀ ªÀ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¸Áܦ¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ NzÀ¯ÁVzÉ:
¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯É ¸ÀASÉå:¹J 18 JAJAJ£ï 2012 ¢£ÁAPÀ:04.10.2012 ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É:
F ªÉÄÃ¯É MzÀ¯ÁzÀ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ ¨sÁUÀ F PɼÀV£ÀAwzÉ
(v) "In respect of government land identified as 'safer zone', land should be allotted on lease basis, with the condition that the lease rental based on market price as advised by the Revenue Department along with the development and infrastructure charges shall be payable by the licensees. Every stone crusher unit should be allotted at least 1 acre of land, with clear demarcation, and with clear approach."
CAvÀºÀ WÀlPÀUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀPÁðj ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤ÃqÀĪÀ°è «¢ü¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ PÀÄjvÀAvÉ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉò¹zÉ.
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:PÀAE 705 J¯ïa© 2012 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:25.10.2012. ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ ºÁUÀÆ gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ F f¯ÉèUÀ¼À°è PÀ®ÄèUÀtÂUÁjPÉUÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤ÃqÀĪÀ°è ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆa zÀgÀzÀ ±ÉÃPÀqÀ 20gÀµÀÄÖ «¢ü¹ G½zÀ f¯ÉèUÀ¼À°è ±ÉÃPÀqÀ 10gÀµÀÄÖ zÀgÀ «¢ü¹ CAvÀºÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæw JgÀqÀÄ ªÀµÀðPÉÆ̪ÄÉ ä, ±ÉÃPÀqÀ 10gÀµÀÄÖ ºÉaѸÀ®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥Á®gÀ DzÉñÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è, ¸À»/-
(GªÀiÁzÉë) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üãÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð PÀAzÁAiÀÄ E¯ÁSÉ (¨sÀÆ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw-1)" -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025
6. Thus, as against the original Circular which stipulated that the lease rental should be based on the market price as advised by the Revenue Department, the Government Circular was modified to indicate that the lease rental should be 20% of the guidance value in respect of the Government lands coming within Bangalore Rural and Ramanagara Districts and 10% in respect of other districts and this lease rentals should be increased by 10%.
7. In other words, the lease rentals in respect of the Government lands where stone crushers could be located was indicated to be 20% of the guidance value in respect of Bangalore Rural and Ramanagara districts and 10% in respect of other districts.
8. The petitioner is aggrieved by this amendment dated 25.10.2012, made to the original Circular dated 04.10.2012, whereby the lease rents at 20% of the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 guidance value are to be adopted as the rental income.
9. The petitioner states that he had made an application for grant of license to establish a stone crusher and his application was considered and he was granted license on 30.09.2019 which was valid for a period of five years i.e., till 31.03.2024. It is thus clear that, about seven years prior to the petitioner's making an application, the lease amount had been determined by the Government Order and it is therefore obvious that he had made an application for establishing a stone crusher on a Government land, being fully aware of the lease rent that he is required to pay.
10. Be that as it may, it is the case of the petitioner that by virtue of the amendment to the Act, the initial lease period of five years was deemed to have been extended for a period of 20 years and he therefore made an application on 07.10.2021 requesting the authorities to grant him the said benefit; the -9- NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 authorities accepted this plea and proceeded to issue him a demand notice calling upon him to pay the lease amounts as fixed by the aforementioned Government Order and its modification and demanded a sum of Rs.87,07,500/-. The said notice is extracted hereunder:
" ಯ ಭೂ ಾ ಯವರ ಕ ೇ , ಗ ಮತು ಭೂ ಾನ ಇ ಾ ೆ (ಖ
ಖ ಜ),
ಜ
13 ೇ ಮಹ , . . ೇಂದ", #ಾ: ಅಂ%ೇಡ'( ೕ), %ೆಂಗಳ+ರು ನಗರ , ೆ-,
%ೆಂಗಳ+ರು-560001
Phone & Fax: 080-22861516
ಸಂ ೆ/ :ಗಭೂಇ/ ಭೂ /%ೆಂ ೆ,/ಕ"ಷ(/ಭೂ.%ಾ 1ೆ/2024-25 E-Mail [email protected] ಷಯ: %ೆಂಗಳ+ರು ನಗರ , ೆ-, ಆ ೇಕ3 4ಾಲೂ-ಕು ಮ6ಾಂತ7ಂ1ಾಪ9ರ 1ಾ"ಮದ ಸ:ೆ; ನಂ. 47 ರ 1-10 ಎಕ=ೆ >ೕಣ;ದ ಸ ಾ; @ಾಗ ೆ' ಭೂ%ಾ 1ೆಯನುA BಾವCಸುವ ಕು ತು.
ಉ ೆ-ೕಖ: 1. , ಾ- ಕಲು-ಪ9 Eಾಡುವ ಘಟಕಗಳ ೈIೆJK ೕ ೆ ಮತು ಯಂತ"ಣ Bಾ"L ಾರ ¸À¨ÉsAiÀÄ £ÀqÀªÀ½ ¢£ÁAPÀ:06.04.2021.
2. ತಮM ಮನ ಪತ" ) ಾಂಕ:04.03.2024.
Nೕಲ'ಂಡ ಷಯ ೆ' ಸಂಬಂL>ದಂ4ೆ N: IಾPQ"ೕ ಬೂ-Nಟ3K ಆದ ೕವ9 %ೆಂಗಳ+ರು ನಗರ , ೆ- ಆ ೇಕ3 4ಾಲೂ-ಕು, ಮ6ಾಂತ7ಂ1ಾಪ9ರ 1ಾ"ಮದ
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 ಸ:ೆ; ನಂ.
ನಂ 47 ರ 1-10 ಎಕ=ೆ ಸ ಾ; 1ೋEಾಳ ಪ"Rೇಶದ7- ಕ"ಷ( ಘಟಕ IಾTUಸಲು ) ಾಂಕ:21.04.2017 ಂದ ) ಾಂಕ:22.03.2022 ರವ=ೆ1ೆ Vಾರಂ-> ೈIೆJK ೕಡ ಾWರುತRೆ. ಕ"ಷ( CದುXಪ ಯಮಗಳನುIಾರ ಕ"ಷ( ಪರ:ಾ 1ೆ ಅವLಯನುA ಮೂಲ ಮಂಜೂ=ಾC ) ಾಂಕ)ಂದ 20 ವಷ;ಗಳ ಅವL1ೆ ಸ ಸುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಉ ೆ-ೕಖ(1)ರಂ4ೆ ) ಾಂಕ:06.04.2021 ರಂದು ನ#ೆದ , ಾ- ಕಲು-ಪ9 Eಾಡುವ ಘಟಕಗಳ ೈIೆJK ೕ ೆ ಮತು ಯಂತ"ಣ Bಾ"L ಾರದ ಸZೆಯ7- ಚ\;> ಉಪಅರಣ/ ಸಂರ]^ಾL ಾ ಗಳ_ ಬ ೆAೕರುಘಟ` =ಾabೕಯ ಉRಾ/ನವನ ರವರ ವರ)ಯಂ4ೆ ಕ"ಷ( ಘಟಕ IಾTUಸ ಾWರುವ ಪ"Rೇಶವ9 ಬ ೆAೕರುಘಟ` =ಾabೕಯ ಉRಾ/ನವನ ಪ ಸರ ಸೂ]cವಲಯದ :ಾ/Uಯ 6ೊರ1ೆ ಬರುCರುವ9RಾW Cd>ರುವ9ದ ಂದ ಸ ಾ; ಪ"Rೇಶ ೆ' ಅನeಯ:ಾಗುವ ಭೂ%ಾ 1ೆಯನುA BಾವC> ೊಂಡು ಕ"ಷ( ಘಟಕದ ಸುತಲೂ 20 ಂದ 30 fೕಟ( ಅಂತರದ ಪ fCgಳ1ೆ WಡಮರಗಳನುA %ೆಳ> ಹ>ರುವಲಯ Eಾ;ಣEಾಡುವ ಷರC1ೊಳಪಟು` ಕ"ಷ( ಪರ:ಾ 1ೆಯ ಅವLಯನುA ಯEಾನುIಾರ 20 ವಷ;ಗಳ ಅವL1ೆ ಸ ಸಲು ಕ"ಮವ ಸಲು ಸZೆಯ7- CೕEಾ; ಸ ಾWರುತRೆ.
ಉ ೆ-ೕಖ(2) ರ ಪತ"ದ7- ತಮM ಕ"ಷ( ಘಟಕ ೆ' ೕ ರುವ Vಾರಂ-> ೈIೆJK ಅವLಯನುA ಸ > ೊಡುವಂ4ೆ ೋ ಮನ ಸ7->ರುCೕ . ಅದರಂ4ೆ ಪ Qೕ7ಸ ಾW, ) ಾಂಕ:06.04.2021 ರ ಸZೆಯ ನಡವdಯಂ4ೆ 4ಾವ9 ಕ"ಷ( ಘಟಕ IಾTU>ರುವ 1-10 ಎಕ=ೆ ಸ ಾ; 1ೋEಾಳದ ಪ"Rೇಶ ೆ' ಕ"ಷ( ೈIೆJK ಮಂಜೂ=ಾC ) ಾಂಕ)ಂದ ಸ ಾ; ಆRೇಶ ಸಂ: ಕಂಇ 705 ಎ3@ೆi, 2012 %ೆಂಗಳ+ರು ) ಾಂಕ:25.10.2012 ರ ಅನುIಾರ ಭೂfಯ
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 Eಾಗ;ಸೂ\ ದರದ jೇ.20 ನಂತರ ಪ"C 2 ವಷ; ೊ'NM jೇ.10 ರಷು` ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ ೋಷ`ಕದ7- ವ >ರುವ lತವನುA ಖ@ಾ ೆ-2 ರ ಮು ಾಂತರ ಕಂRಾಯ ಇ ಾ ೆ1ೆ BಾವC> ಚಲJನುA ಈ ಕ ೇ 1ೆ ಸ7->ದ ನಂತರ ಕ"ಷ( Vಾರಂ-> ೈIೆJK ಅವLಯನುA ಸ ಸಲು ಕ"ಮವ ಸ ಾಗುವ9ದು. ೋಂದ ಮತು ಮುRಾ"ಂಕ ಇ ಾ ೆಯ ಅLಸೂಚ ೆ ಸಂ ೆ/: > > 25/2014-
15 ) ಾಂಕ: 28.03.2016
ಕ". MlÄÖ
) ಾಂಕ ) ಾಂಕದ ಪ"C ಎಕ=ೆ1ೆ ಪ"C ಎಕ=ೆ1ೆ
±ÉÃ.20 ಭೂ%ಾ 1ೆ
ಸಂ )ಂದ ವ=ೆ1ೆ :ಾa;ಕ ದರ
1. 21.04.2017 20.04.2019 70,00,000 1-10 UÀÄAmÉ * 17,50,000
14,00,000
ೋಂದ ಮತು ಮುRಾ"ಂಕ ಇ ಾ ೆಯ ಅLಸೂಚ ೆ ಸಂ ೆ/:
ೋ.ಮು/> >/485/2017-18, ) ಾಂಕ: 29-08-2018 MlÄÖ ಕ". ) ಾಂಕ ) ಾಂಕದ ಪ"C ಎಕ=ೆ1ೆ ಪ"C ಎಕ=ೆ1ೆ ಪ"C ±ÉÃ.20 ಭೂ%ಾ 1ೆ ಸಂ )ಂದ ವ=ೆ1ೆ :ಾa;ಕ ದರ ಎಕ=ೆ1ೆ (1-10 JPÀgÉ) ±ÉÃ.20 (1-10 JPÀgÉ)
1. 21.04.2019 20.04.2021 74,00,000 18,50,000 1,85,000 20,35,000
2. 21.04.2021 20.04.2023 74,00,000 18,50,000 1,85,000 20,35,000 ೋಂದ ಮತು ಮುRಾ"ಂಕ ಇ ಾ ೆಯ ಅLಸೂಚ ೆ ಸಂ ೆ/:
ೋ.ಮು/> >/99/2023-24, ) ಾಂಕ: 27.09.2023 MlÄÖ ಕ".ಸಂ ) ಾಂಕ ) ಾಂಕದ ಪ"C ಎಕ=ೆ1ೆ ಪ"C ಪ"C ಭೂ%ಾ 1ೆ )ಂದ ವ=ೆ1ೆ :ಾa;ಕ ದರ ಎಕ=ೆ1ೆ ಎಕ=ೆ1ೆ ±ÉÃ.20 ±ÉÃ.20 (1-10 (1-10 JPÀgÉ) JPÀgÉ)
1. 21.04.2023 20.04.2025 1,05,00,000 26,25,000 2,62,500 28,87,500 MlÄÖ = 87,07,500"
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¨sÀƨÁrUÉ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ vÀªÀÄä PÀæµÀgï WÀlPÀzÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¸ÀÛj¸À®Ä ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¹zÉ.
¸À»/-
»jAiÀÄ ¨sÀÆ«eÁÕ¤ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀ¸Àå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð f¯Áè PÀ®Äè¥ÀÄr ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ WÀlPÀUÀ¼À ¯Éʸɣïì ¤ÃrPÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ."
11. It is at this stage, the petitioner has thought it fit to approach this Court and challenge the Government Order.
12. At the outset, it has to be stated here that the petitioner having applied for a stone crushing license was obviously aware about his liability to pay the rents in the event he wanted to establish his stone crusher on a Government land, which is located in a safe zone.
13. Once the petitioner was aware of the Government Order and had nevertheless made an application, the petitioner would obviously be stopped from contending that he would not be liable to pay the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 lease rents as stipulated in the Government Order dated 25.10.2012.
14. However, Sri Ravindra G. Kolle, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously contended that fixation of the lease rentals was per se discriminatory and therefore, the petitioner would have a right to challenge the same even after he had secured the license.
15. It is the contention of Shri.Kolle that there must be uniformity in the matter of fixing lease rentals; he contends that the fixation of one amount for one geographical area and another amount for another geographical area is discriminatory and affects Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore, will have to be struck down. He also seeks to contend that there is absolutely no basis for arrival of this arbitrary figure of 20% for two districts and 10% for the remaining districts. He places reliance on the following
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in support of his arguments:
Sl. Citations
No.
01 Jamshed Hormusji Wadia Vs. Board of
Trustees, Port of Mumbai reported in (2004) 3 SCC 214 (Para 13 to 20) 02 Ratti Paloni Kapadi and antoher Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 1992 Mh.L.J. 1356 (Para 12 to 19) 03 KIADB and another Vs. Prakash Dal Mill and others reported in (2011) 6 SCC 714 (Para 19 to 25)
16. Pursuant to an order (dated 10.07.1998) passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.17078 of 1997 whereby this Court directed the State Government to formulate a policy to regulate the carrying on of the business relating to crushing of stones, the State enacted the Karnataka Regulations of Stone Crushers Act, 2011. The legislation was enacted with the objective of regulating the business relating to the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 crushing of stones by prescribing reasonable conditions including guidelines and license and also for their periodical renewals. It was considered necessary to enact a legislation to provide for,- (1) grant of licence for stone crushers; (2) establishment of district stone crushers regulation committee; (3) inspection of stone crushers; (4) victims relief fund; (5) appeals against the orders of Licensing Authority; (6) penalties and certain other consequential matters.
17. The Act originally envisaged that the stone crushers were required to obtain a license before carrying on the business of crushing of stones.
18. Section 3 of the Act stipulated that if any person was carrying on the business of stone crushing as on the date of commencement of the Act with the license issued to him by any authority, he was required to apply to the licensing authority under the Act within three months and on receipt of such an application,
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 the existing stone crushing unit were allowed to function till the grant or refusal of the license by the licensing authority established under the Act. Sub- section (4) of Section 3 also stipulated that a grant of license under sub-section (3), the existing stone crushers would have to shift within the safer zone within six months.
19. Section 4 of the Act provided for filing of an application and on receipt of the application, the licensing authority was required to cause an inspection of the location after verifying the fulfilment of other condition, the application filed either to be granted or rejected within three months.
20. The term of license fixed to be a period of three years and would be eligible for a further period of three years under Section 5 of the Act.
21. Section 6 of the Act provided for conditions for grant of licenses. The first condition was that the stone
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 crushing should not be established outside the safer zones. A safer zone has been defined under Section 2(j) of the Act to mean a location of the zone declared as such by the registering authority under Section 6. Section 6 of the Act reads as follows:
"6. Conditions for grant of license.- License shall be granted under this Act subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(1) The stone crusher shall not be established outside the safer zone;
(2) The safer zone shall be within a location of,-
(a) two kilometres away from the National Highways, habitats, temples, schools and river;
(b) one and a half kilometres away from the State Highway;
(c) five hundred meters away from the link roads;
(d) eight kilometres away from the limits of Municipal Corporations;
(e) four kilometres away from the limits of District Head Quarters;
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025
(f) two kilometres away from the boundary limits of a Taluk Head Quarters;
(g) one kilometre away from the limits of an inhabited village or any land recorded as forest in Government records or any private land which is shown as cultivable land in the revenue records;
(3) No two safer zones shall be located within a radius of fifty kilometres.
(4) The Licencing Authority shall, within a period of four months from the date of commencement of this Act, identify and declare the safer zones by notification specifying the area and limits within their jurisdiction: Provided that the Licencing Authority may in exceptional circumstances and for the reasons to be recorded in writing may relax any of the condition or conditions specified in sub-section (2) and sub- section (3) for the purpose of declaration of safer zones.
(5) The Licencing Authority shall send the proposal of declaration of safer zone under subsection (4), to the pollution control Board for its certification. On receipt of the proposal by the pollution control Board or where three months have lapsed from the date of the proposal and no communication has been received by the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 Licencing Authority, the Licencing Authority shall by notification declare the safer zone in accordance with the proposal.
(6) Each stone crusher unit shall be located in a minimum area of one acre of land including stone crushers belonging to State Government or the Panchayat as the case may be.
(7) Each unit shall abide by the pollution control measures or such other safeguards as may be prescribed by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board from time to time.
(8) Each unit shall conform to the Noise (Regulations and Control) Rules, 2000. (9) The unit shall abide by the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and rules made thereunder."
22. It is therefore clear that the Act as originally enacted defined a location or a zone which could be considered as a safer zone by laying down several parameters.
23. The Act did not guarantee lands to be leased to the applicants on being granted the land. However, by
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 virtue of sub-section (6) of Section 6 of the Act, it becomes clear that the stone crusher should be located in the minimum area of 01 acre of land including stone crushing belonging to the State Government, the only relaxation granted was for the establishment of the stone crushers for Government projects which is also to be temporary in nature. It is therefore obvious that the original Act defined a safer zone in which stone crushers could be established.
24. In the year 2013, the State amended the said Act taking into consideration that it was difficult to declare safer zones and the Act had envisaged identification of safer zones, procurement of land and development of the same, which had led to the delay in declaration of safer zones.
25. It is also noticed that the safer zone could not be developed in time and it prevented development of shifting of the existing stone crushers and which had resulted in an order (dated 27.03.2013) being passed
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 in by this Court in W.P. Nos.40894-956 of 2012. It had in turn resulted in stoppage of a large number of crushers and had resulted in non-supply of metal and had brought the infrastructural projects and industrial development to a standstill. The amendment therefore sought to prescribe conditions for declaring areas as safer zones based on scientific studies and practices and the onus of identifying and procuring the land was shifted to the applicant. As a consequence, Sub-sections (2) to (7) of Section 3 were amended.
26. Thus, the legislative intent of the Act as originally enacted in 2012 and as amended in the year 2013 was not to confer any statutory right on an applicant to demand that a Government land should be leased to him.
27. If the statute does not confer any obligation on the part of the State to provide land, it would necessarily follow that the applicant cannot demand that a
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 particular land be leased to him only because it lies within the safer zone.
28. Fundamentally speaking, if the land of either the Government or a private person is situated in a safer zone and a stone crusher can be established, an applicant has either the option of purchasing the land or getting the land on lease so as to enable setting up of a stone crusher.
29. In such a scenario, the applicant cannot demand that the land by virtue of it falling in the safer zone should be leased to him at a price which is reasonable and according to him should be uniform throughout the state.
30. Principally, a prospective lessee cannot demand that the rent should be in accordance with any prescribed norms or within a particular set of parameters. In case of a lease, it would be the prerogative of the landlord to determine the lease price and if a
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 prospective lessee is not able to bear the cost, there is no compulsion for him to accept the lease.
31. The same basic principle will also be applicable in respect of the land belonging to the Government land also. It is therefore clear that the petitioner who is a licensee cannot demand that the land leased to him by the State Government should be at a particular rate or at a rate which is the same in respect of other lands in other parts of the State.
32. If the State is under no obligation to lease its lands, it necessarily follows that the applicant has no right to demand that a uniform rent should be fixed by the State throughout its territory.
33. By the impugned Circular, the State has evolved a criterion for fixing the rent in respect of the land coming within the Bangalore Rural and Ramanagara districts, which is determined at 20% of the guidance value to be the lease rental and in respect of other
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 districts, it is fixed at 10%. It is obvious that the lands in Bangalore rural and Ramanagara districts would obviously carry a higher value and therefore even the rents that an owner can expect would be much more when compared to the lands belonging to other districts.
34. As already stated above, since it is a prerogative of the landlord to determine the rent that he can expect, the petitioner who is only a lessee cannot demand that the rent be fixed to suit his convenience or be fixed uniformly across all the properties owned by the State.
35. I am therefore of the view that there is absolutely no justification in any of the arguments advanced by the petitioner.
36. Reliance placed upon by the petitioner on three judgments cannot also be of no avail.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025
37. In the case of Jamshed Hormusji Wadia, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case in which Bombay Port Trust had taken a decision to terminate the tenancies since the rate of return that the port was getting was in the negative; but while determining the lease, it had given an option that the lessees could continue subject to them agreeing to pay a revised rent fixed pursuant to a report that had been obtained by the Trust from the experts. In the context of that case, the Apex Court has held that the State and its authorities, including the instrumentalities of the State, have to be just and reasonable in all their activities, including those in the field of contract, and that they cannot act in an arbitrary manner.
38. Obviously, the said decision will have no application to the facts of this case since the State has merely fixed two rates for two different parts of the State. The State has taken into consideration the land value
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 in two districts which is obviously on the higher side as compared to other districts and has chosen to demand a higher rent.
39. In my view, the State was justified in adopting this kind of reasonable classification to ensure that it secures a reasonable return for its lands.
40. The case relied upon in the case of Ratti Paloni Kapadia, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case where the Government had decided to revise the lease rent and in that context, the Apex Court held that the public policy should be such that it does not exploit the occupants of the land by charging exorbitant rent based on high increase in price of land in urban areas as it tended to be an exploitation practice.
41. In the instant case, the State has merely fixed two prices, one at 10% of the guidance value for areas in respect of all districts other than Bangalore Rural and
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 Ramanagara districts, whereas the prices are fixed at 20% for the said two districts; this cannot be termed as an exorbitant rate of rent, more so having regard to the fact that applicant would utilize the lands for a commercial purpose with a clear objective of making a profit.
42. It is also to be kept in mind that even before an application for grant of license is made in respect of the Government land, the lease rent has been determined and therefore, the probable cost component for the land would also be taken into consideration to test the profitability of the venture before an application is made would be obvious.
43. The other judgment relied upon, in the case of KIADB vs. Prakash Dal Mill, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case in which the KIADB while allotting the industrial sites had indicated tentative price at which the land was to be allotted and thereafter, the Board had demanded a final
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16937 WP No. 3523 of 2025 allotment price. The Supreme Court in that context has taken the view that the Board could not arbitrarily or irrationally fix the final price without any rational basis.
44. Obviously, this factual situation is not available in the present case and it is clear that the State Government has merely fixed two particular rates way back in the year 2012, whenever it had decided to lease the Government land in which a stone crusher could be established.
45. I am therefore of the view that there is no merit in the arguments advanced by the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
46. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK/-
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 154