Karnataka High Court
Sri K L Virupaksha Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2016
Bench: Chief Justice, R.B Budihal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 10th day of November, 2016
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BUDIHAL R B
Writ Petition No 3144 of 2016 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
SRI K L VIRUPAKSHA REDDY
S/O SRI. A. LAKSHMI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
BUSINESSMAN
R/AT NO 54/B, 3RD CROSS
PARVATHINAGAR
BALLARI-583 103 ... PETITIONER
[By Sri R G Kolle, Advocate)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2
3. THE DIRECTOR
DEPT. OF MINES & GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
4. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST (MINES)
DEPT. OF MINES & GEOLOGY
2ND GATE, HOSPET ROAD
BALLARI-583 104
5. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVT.
DEPARTMENT OF KANNADA, CULTURE
& INFORMATION (KANNADA & ADM.)
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
[Mr I Tharanath Poojary, AGA]
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 TO
EXECUTE RENEWED QUARRYING LEASE DEED PURSUANT TO
RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED 3-2-2014 IN FORM-R VIDE
ANNEXURE-B TO EXTRACT BUILDING STONES IN GOVT. LAND
BEARING SY.NO.316/A OF SIRIWARA VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT OVER AN AREA OF 03.00 ACRES FORTHWITH
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The quarrying operation of the writ petitioner is beyond 1.3 km from Sannarachammana Gudda, which is an ancient monument. A notice was issued to the writ petitioner restraining him from carrying on the quarrying operations in the said area, on the ground that he could 3 not indulge in quarrying operations within the prohibited area.
2. Section 20A of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 [for short, the Central Act] provides that a protected area or a protected monument, as the case may be, is an area of one hundred metres in all directions in respect of the protected area or protected monument.
3. Mr R G Kolle, learned advocate for the writ petitioner, submits that there cannot be any prohibition of any quarrying operations beyond one hundred metres from the protected monument.
4. It is settled position that while computing the area, the outer limits of the monument are to be taken into consideration and, therefore, there cannot be any quarrying operations within the area of one hundred metres from the outer boundary of the protected monument.
4
5. Mr I. Tharanath Poojary, learned additional government advocate, appearing for the respondents, argues that the respondents were within their rights under the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 [for short, the Karnataka Act] read with sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [for short, the Rules], which prohibits quarrying operations carried on by the writ petitioner.
6. Section 4 of the Karnataka Act empowers the government to declare an ancient monument as a protected monument. Section 20 of the Karnataka Act provides for imposition of restrictions from utilizing such areas or any part thereof, without the permission of the Government.
7. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the Rules provides that no quarrying lease shall be granted in respect of any land notified by the State Government as reserved for use by the 5 State or Central Government, any body or corporation owned or controlled by the State or Central Government or for any other public or special purposes.
8. When there is a Central Act in the field prohibiting quarrying operations within an area of one hundred metres from the boundary of a protected monument, and as there is no provision in the Karnataka Act or the Rules, indicating the extent of prohibited area, there cannot be any order restricting a miner from operating his/her mining operations beyond one hundred metres from the outer limit of the protected ancient monument.
9. Therefore, the order impugned is set aside. We direct the writ petitioner-miner not to carry on his quarrying operations causing any damage to the protected ancient monument, including blasting in such area causing damage to the protected ancient monument.
10. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed.
6
11. There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE *pjk