Karnataka High Court
M/S Siddaramu And Sons Stone Crusher vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:37941-DB
WP No. 22680 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 22680 OF 2023 (GM-MM_S)
BETWEEN:
M/S SIDDARAMU AND SONS STONE CRUSHER
AND M-SAND UNIT,
A REGISTERED FIRM OF PARTNERS,
REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
H S MANJU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1624, 1ST CROSS, 5TH BLOCK,
RAMAMANDIRA ROAD, HOSAHALLI
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA GAJANAN KOLLE.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by SHARADA
VANI B
Location: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
OF
KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHAIRMAN
DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING AND
REGULATION AUTHORITY, MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA-571 401.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:37941-DB
WP No. 22680 of 2023
4. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST &
MEMBER SECRETARY,
DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING &
REGULATION AUTHORITY,
VIVEKANANDA LAYOUT,
MANDYA-571 402.
5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
MANDYA FOREST DIVISION,
SUBHASH NAGARA,
MANDYA-571 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S S MAHENRA.,PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
A)ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR
DIRECTION DIRECTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER AS THE CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT STONE
CRUSHERS LICENSING AND REGULATION AUTHORITY TO
ISSUE A LICENSE IN FORM-C IN TERMS OF SECTION 6-A (2),
OVER AN AREA OF 01-00 ACRES IN PETITIONERS NA
CONVERTED PRIVATE PATTA LAND AT SY.NO.163/3 (163/1) OF
JAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUKA,
MANDYA DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO ISSUE OF CONSENT FOR
OPERATION (CFO) DATED 20/03/2023 BY KSPCB, PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-C, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADLR
CLARIFICATORY LETTER DATED 10/07/2023 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-P AND/OR AND b)PASS ANY SUCH OTHER FURTHER
ORDERS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:37941-DB
WP No. 22680 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is not knocking at the doors of Writ Court with the following principal prayer:
"A )Issue a writ of mandamus or any other Order or Direction directing the 3rd Respondent Deputy Commissioner as the Chairman of District Stone Crushers Licensing & Regulation Authority to issue a License in Form-C in terms of Sec 6-A (2), over an area of 01-00 Acres in Petitioners NA converted Private Patta Land at Sy.No.163/3 (163/1) of Jakkanahalli Village, Srirangapattana Taluka, Mandya District, pursuant to issue of Consent for Operation (CFO) dated 20/03/2023 by KSPCB, produced at Annexure-C, taking into consideration the ADLR Clarificatory Letter dated 10/07/2023 produced at ANNEXURE-P and/or and b)pass any such other further orders."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the subject matter of this petition is substantially similar to the one in W.P No.10405/2023 (GM-MMS) between M/s. Puttappa Stone Crushers & M-sand vs. State & others disposed off by this Bench vide order dated 11.08.2023 and therefore, the relief granted to the litigant therein as a matter of parity needs to be extended to the petitioner herein. He hastens to add that the case of the appellant is more meritorious because of the report of the jurisdictional Authority that the subject land is not within -4- NC: 2023:KHC:37941-DB WP No. 22680 of 2023 the range of forest, be it deemed, conventional or reserved.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents having opposed the petition for some time is broadly in agreement with the first limb of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, namely the facts of this petition broadly match with those of the cognate petition referred to above. However, so far as the second submission of petitioner is concerned, he vehemently disputes contending that there is a Competent Authority to decide as to whether a particular land is a forest land.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we are broadly of the view that the fact matrix of this petition being similar to the one in M/s. Puttappa Stone Crushers, supra, the relief granted to the litigant therein as a matter of equality and parity needs to be extended to the petitioner herein. Paragraphs 4 & 5 of the said judgment read as under: -5-
NC: 2023:KHC:37941-DB WP No. 22680 of 2023 "4. We further direct the concerned competent authority to consider the application at Annexure-H dated 10.10.2022 made by the petitioner in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of DHANANJAY (SUPRA) and take appropriate decision within a period of two months from the date a copy of the order is produced before the competent Authority.
5. We further make it clear that while considering the application afresh, the concerned Authority will have to consider whether the subject land is "Forest" or "Forest Land" as laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.N.GODAVARMAN THIRUMULKPAD Vs. UNION OF INIDA AND OTHERS. "
5. We are not impressed by the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is already a report to the effect that the subject land is not a part of the forest or forest land and therefore, straightway the deemed conversion benefit has to be accorded. Whether a particular piece of land is a forest or a forest land is a matter to be decided by the Competent Authority established under the relevant statutes. If some official in his discretion gives a report, that a particular land is not a forest or a forest land, that cannot be taken as the gospel truth.
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:37941-DB WP No. 22680 of 2023 In the above circumstances, this petition is disposed off in terms of M/s. Puttappa Stone Crusher case supra and extending the same benefit to the petitioner herein as has been given to a litigant in the said case, with suitable adaptations.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE Snb, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17