Nagaraju vs The Tahsildar O/O Tahsildar on 31 March, 2009

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Nagaraju vs The Tahsildar O/O Tahsildar on 31 March, 2009

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

9~.«*F 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 3181' DAY OF' MARCH 2009f'f5$Tf«_:"<A.'

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. 13.13. DENAKARAN, Ac:H'_1E1r«' ..:3a1j"Vs*.a.'IVCEi'.w 

AND _
THE HON'BLE3 MR. J'USTI'C.E;"~A.S.V.  J

WRIT PETITION NOS':}¢'%.23 t«b'"4_3;?/f§\()Oé9(GMV?KL'R)

BETWEEN:

1. Nagaraju,
S/0. Sanjivaiah,    «_  
Aged 30 yearsA,--Bc§ttanéi§:2aIy'*a:G1*am*a,..,, 
Ramuva1liFfQst,Kéiigeriﬂo-b1"i;_ _ -

Bangalore South 'Fa1_1i}<{_V-~  _ 

2. KM. Mahesh, 

S/o. Marigowda, U

   §'»€ars,"  ..... 
Koluf Gré1riei',}VEudhigere Post,
Chavf1rrapa'tIi'a. _T€iufU,Vk;' --

Ram 9;n_ag_e.1-a- 'D'i~S,t. »  V A 

. A \Zasudéva, 

.. ,/.9; ..Anjana1f¢ddi,
_ _Agéd 'V32 years,
 Main»_R'oad,

'v"V.._\/iv.e-kanaﬁda Colony, I

 '  Nagara Post, Bangaiorea

"AKana_1H1<_é;pura Road,

 

 



These Writ Petitions are fiied under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying that this l~Eon'b1e Court bps'-pleased
to quash the order dated 13.2009 vide No.l\/lAG/ 17'}  

These Writ Petitions coming up for orders  

Court delivered the following:   

JUDGMQNTJK

umawmedbyetitnNAﬁARANtxry* I
1.1) The petitioners in these bat.C'r1'  Writ Pe'ti--tio.ns are the

owners of the lorries which anﬁisea sand without
Valid permit in the arealsrtof  Mysore District.
Theiesponentfahsﬂdaeseneddﬁninnphgnedlorﬁescni1LKl2OO8
at about 8w(jO   Channapatna,
Ramanagara   petitioners are transporting
sand illegality.   v_impL1ggi1.ed"'..lorries, above 3ft. from the body

level: .

1.2)'s§;aﬁxe¢dﬁags@kged Ll2J2008,therespondentcaﬂed upon

'ith'e'*petition_ers to. fine of Rs.l,O0,000/~ per lorry and in case

 'of:..p»eti_t'i'oner  the respondent demanded a fine of Rs.50,000/-,

 

 



of course, without prejudice to initiate suitable furthe_r.__ action

against the petitioners, in case of nonpayment of the 

1.3] On receipt of the notice, petitioners made repiresenta'tilon_lll_jon'

8.12.2008 requesting the respondent tioiiiire'l'ease their._lorriesi"'asiT. V

the have not violated an Rules 0I'i:R'€ ulations, asitnieneti.ftioners'
Y Y  V

are only the owners of the lorries  .. ggriespondent,
without appreciating the  the petitioners in
their representation   final order on
8.12.2008 itself   itollipay the fine amount
proposed, failiingv.vsihviclhi:'i:;the'=irripugne.d>'ilorries seized, would be

brought to auclt.i_on4lon   h

2.1) Being aggrieved V.,'o"y"ti*1e isaiid order, the petitioners moved this

Court.ili'ii1_i'iVlxiri"ti:' lijetitioniillllllilos.1552045523/2008 and 1563'7--

5641/2.d0'8V.C";ilit2=,_ii_Wrivt--i"Petition Nos. 1605746058/2008 and Writ

eeteeee Nos. 1.552o--15523/2008 and 1563745641/2008. At the

 tirneAllofiissuinginotices, this Court directed the Taluka Executive

" l"»»ii'«'1agist_ratei,"Chennapatna, not to proceed with the auction, if each

"petitioners deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/~ and since the

 

 



3) Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the respondent-
Tahsildar heard the petitioners and passed the impugned order on
1.1.2009, which is under challenge in the present batc'h:"jo_i"'--Writ

Petitions.

4) Mr. P.S. Manjunath, iearned cc},ttns.e1igfj.for"

contends that the respondent~Tahsit1d._ar has no under.

Section 73 of the Karnataka Land  a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/-- and E?s.50,OO()V/A'<--ﬂt1sA  and therefore,
the impugned order is totally wi'th.o:LitV

5) Per contra,  our attention to

Section 4 and ,Seet_ion_i"2.i'i:;of_  Minerals (Development

and Regu1ation7)._Ac't,  «the MMDR Act") and submits
that the authoritiiesuareconferred with powers to take appropriate

actio'r'r._V1,1nd':e'r tyQo.__differen.t..~statutes. The very mentioning of a

wrong':proi/isio'n_i"or*._o*mission to mention the provision which

i.co.ntains the sottrce_ of power, wilt not invaiidate an order where

«--t«he..sou.rce of"su?;h power exists. in this regard, learned Advocate

 

 



General placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in

UNION OF INDIA Vs. TULSIRAM PATEL reported Nip;f'[(jf"9s'5t) 3

scc 398} and the decision in HIGH COURT OF  AM':

ANOTHER v. GUJARAT KISI-IAN MAznooR,.lfAi$icHAYA'r3 

reported in [(2003) 4 SCC 712}.

6) By way of reply, learned  appeari'p.#si;=  
Petitioners submits that  has got
the powers under the pv1*ovisiop:_sv"lo_f  and the Rules
framed under the  Concession Rules,
1994, (for short   felevant rules which are
applicable said Rules. But both the
Rules do not  to impose a fine of
l?S.l?vOO,OQ(>>)4J?*;"v31jd  imposed in the impugned order

dated .ll;'l«2s;j'f2GOEé:« fl: 

17.1) W'eh«ave g.i:'v--evi1 o'u.r" careful consideration to the submission of

 Rlearnedhougisc.l«l"for the parties.

 

 



10

Thousands for violation of Section 73 of

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. This is

done under Section 73 of Karnataka Landmf"

Revenue Act, 1964 as suitable amouI1t,§:i'r1«Qj~--.l..i'  V A4

view of extreme loss caused"?_"'~-.to:.A_f4

Government by unauthorized "ren1'oval 

sand and loss done to environnienst.  

The truck owners  beenvgiV'eAn'}one""" it

week time for payment 0fy_peln.a1'tyyVidefiofcicgfii
dated 01 . 12 .2008;  _o\'vnr;;rs  ._\/ehicles
have not responded"   was
given on   ipenalty
failing '-.\mji1'l_  auctioned on
     ,

 At  the sand ﬁlled
lorriesetvhe of said lorries

failed to" prod.uce'- any document including

V-}3leg»i.st1*aAtionV"€e'rtificate of vehicle, Tax

' :yV"'Boo}:l'of«l7ehicle, Insurance papers, permit

H ~. lfor sand and even drivers were

"'not,.__having any driving license with them.

Tlieyt' have been issued with notice in

 i.VV{v~;iting for violation of law of land and

 given opportunity to pay penalty and get

  

, L-
}\'\

g_§Wr 

 



11

their vehicles released, but none of them

responded.

The illegal extraction of sand  it

Prohibited under Section 73 0f Karnat.9"ifI{a"-t'.V'*-in  » A4

Land Revenue Act, 1964 and  ll

transportation of sand' :'"ivill. " "attralct._    A
Government Order    
dated 06.8.2005 anc1v"Ne._, DNEGV'/'DD(MP§tiJ;'t./_VVW 

sand: 1.3-3 /2008-O9 / l822'V'Vi'd..ated 0's;t9{z00s'.3
The illegal extractionloin-:lj4$a1t.d cease;
irreparable damage ;_to' jeinfiironment
and also damage  iloalance
of earth'Vé{n¢i::1§e'i  .of._tite  that the
penalty}; __o:f_    is correct.
E--£eijice°'   :'}'t1j:t'ina;lj'i*e'£'a0'lVia, Executive
Ma;g--i_st'rate  Taluk initiate
acti0n"'-a_Tgaivns't  under Section 73

0f'i(arnatak_a"Larrd Revenue Act 1964 pass

A %,.,'f011"0.winglvofder. This refer orders of
 ev'Ho_nv%i§1e,e"H:t'gh Court W.P.N0.l5520--23/2008
 1563?'-'A1:=5l641/2008 dated 19m December,

Qoosf ~ 

 

 



E3

addition to any penalty to which he may be

liable under this Act for such unauthorized
removal; and not withstanding anyw 
criminal proceedings which may  
instituted against him in respect of 

unauthorised removal.   ._

(2) The decision of the  to  
the value of any such r;a_t't1rai prod  

be final"

iasi    
7.4 Section 73(1) and p('2) of   to take action
when a person   property of the
Government or   in which case, the
Government   thevalue of such property or
any natural products.  person is also liable to pay

penalty in aa;_id'iti,Or1 to"*t.he'recovery of the value of such property or

anynatiuraiiproduct'unauthorisedly removed, notwithstanding any

 may be instituted against him in

respect of suchitinauthorised removal. Section 73(2) of the KLR

V,-/"t

 



E7

192--C. Punishment under other laws not
barred.- Nothing in this Act shaii prevent"
any person from being prosecuted an.c{t. 
punished under any other iaw for the 
being in force for any Act or omi,ssiori.irn'at*{§;.
punishable by or under this act.  i A  hi i i

(emphasis supp_1_iect)  

8) Placing reliance on  Minienvvdment} Act,
learned counsel for the  the maximum
punishment that  violation of the
provisions of the   as provided in clauses
(1) to (8) of Sec*tio"n the respondent, in any
event, has no a:i;1_th'o4rit3' a fine of Rs.1,00,000/~ and
Rs.50,000/w upon  we are unabie to appreciate the

saidVV.content_it33'n, :hecaL1se,h"Se.<_:_Lion E92--A of the KLR (Amendment) Act is

appiieafolei"oni3z__"in'«vt.the case where a Criminal proceeding is

::iiiris_tigtuted'against 'th_e..sperson in respect of unauthorised removal of

_.t_he.g_.§}oy'ernment«;_ property or naturai product by the Judicial

V' ---.._"«Vt\/iaigi.st'1*iateVFirst Ciass, which action is independent of the action

  'be initiated by the Tahsildar under Section 73 of the KLR



19

exercising the power under Section 73(2) of the KLR Act. In this
regard, it is relevant to refer the following portion of Section 73(1),

viz.,

 in addition to any penalty to  -1- 
may be liable under this Act  _ i

unauthorized removal. . . ."

This again indicates that in addition--»..to*..the  he may

be liable under this Act for._such""'u.n'auith.orisied'*re'n'1oval, the
Tahsildar is empowered to pass with respect to
the removal of the; natural product
unauthorisedly by the power to pass a
penalty is only"  i92--A. On the other
hand, the Talisiiidar' .iVv'h.afs.iiiegottindependent power to pass
appropriate ;.orderiivvj:itl1~irega.rdii to the removal of government

property or productiiunauthorisedly by' such person. There

 no iirnitviprescribed-against it. The statute itseif indicates that

 value of the property removed or the natural product is a

  and the decision of the Tahsildar, as to value of such

 



20

removal of Government property or natural product, shall be final.
That apart, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General,
the provisions of the MMDR Act are also directly applicable to the

facts of the Case.

9.2) Section 4 and Section 21 of the IVIMDR Act are 

this regard.
"4. Prospecting or mining  , 
under licence or lease.'-9   
undertake any reg-QyurnaislslarileleTfarpspeetinigll
or mining operatiolnlge'inst-étny 
under and» uritril.jthe___iVéfvmS and
c0nditid'nsﬁ§f_9la permit or of a
  ease may be, of
a  this Act and
the('tiles'Vi1<l5??C3eh'l'tlie-reitllnder."

 

 



21

Section 4[1A), as inserted by Act 38 of 1999,

reads thus:

"No person shall transport or store 
cause to be transported or stored  *' 
mineral otherwise than in acco_r~¢*ia.'ri:§:,e
with the provisions of this 
rules made thereunder,  it  it 9

(emphasis si;1}:>:vf;'f)~1.i_ed)

In case, where there is,----\{io1ati,m1 'Seetiori"4{.1}.vv'and 4(1A),

Section 21(1)(-4) and (5) of the I'\iI1'Jij}?«i[')i_Af::t:. as hereunder:

"21. 9'-Pena-Itiesfe   .V..«V'Whoever
contravenes t::h'ie_Vprevisiensxéiof si1b=section (1)

or subi.gvecjtiQriv."'{--1.A)'sectiQri' 4 shali be

pum'sh'ed.V'7iwith?: '*irhp'risonrhe'n"t for a term
which '-may ieﬁjterid. t'o__tV-Jo years, or with fine
which extend  'twenty-five thousand

rtfrpees, or wiithiboth . 



22

[4] Whenever any person raises,

transports or causes to be raised or_4v," if

transported, without any lawful authorit;y,- «'  » if

any mineral from any land, and, forthat'

purpose, uses any tool,'  

vehicle or any other thing,;"1«su:<';f'h*   

tool, equipment, veh?.cle_V oriixanyp  

thing shall be liable toiviviibe' seized.  an,

officer or authority specially jér_npowe're'd

in this behalf.

(4A) xxx   

[5]  ::;,a nyjt persori raises, without
any  -any mineral from
any "land,   Government may

rec_over'""fr_orr1..".suc.hi'person the mineral so

..raised,.,,or, v{r'he.rer'such mineral has already

V :fbeer1'«.d'ispo_sed of, the price thereof, and

Vftiay' .'a£so'.l.,r'e"cover from such person, rent,

A royavltyi' tax, as the case may be, for the

pei*ioli during which the land was

%

iplloccupied by such person without any

 *1 if 'lawful authority. "

(emphasis supplied)

M-...,,.



23

9.3) Of course, the learned Counsel for the petitioners brought to

our notice Rules 42(1) and 44(1) of the Karnataka Min'or~»lX2}in'eral

Concession Rules, 1994 (for short "the KEVPMC Rules'..'§)"  

thus:

"42. Transport of Minoir-_,'§/I~iner:s1s.'fM;  
person shall transporty____io"r..:_cause.'  be}

V transported any V   except
under or in accordanceiltyithri'ejV\~.l\/I'ineraI
Despatch,    issued
under this"   --..(_3o.mA;§eten'tiiiAuthority
or any  iby the State

Gov(ernr_ne'n.t or the . 4D'irecto--r.

(3

iv '~{4) AXXXV xxx xxx

47(2). XXX'    XXX
 .

(1) Any person who v_¢o:n_trraVenes the provisions of sub--rule of Rule 42 shall, on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to rupees five thousand or with both, and in the case 24 of a continuing contravention with an additional fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for every day4.._t»-

during which such contravention continues after 4 first ll contravention. .

(2)xxx XXX xxx (3) xxx xxx l (emphasis sup_plied')"" * V 9.4} According to the lc--arnedi"'co1£:nsel._for Vpletitioners, as per Rules 42 and 44(l}_ imprisonment for a term of onevVV..y.ear'v..:o;i';:*;%f:.::A_ or both could be imposed; butllvthe be seized, -as Rule 44 of the KMMC Rules doelsuriot, seizure of the vehicle. But we arevV.:an_able_"i:o_acc_ept Altihemsame, because, Section 21(4) of the "prTo'itvides-ior_seizure of the vehicle. Rules 42 and 44 of applicable only where a Criminal action is before";. the jurisdictional Magistrate for such illegal V'w_Ktfanspor'tatilon of mines and the same shall not take away the ;.3o§}g,.elr:Vllcoi'1ferred on the authorities under Section 21(4) of the 'f..' 28

10. The only remaining contention that the jrn._}:3":1_Vgned proceedings vitiates the principles of natural justice."tQ be rejected, as the petitioners were admi't'te--cij1yb'"=.gi'vens_ post--opp0rtunity to pay the fine and get the V1:fJ1.}'t'{'i,1£:i'€y failed to avail the same. Hence we'fir1-:1 no reason ttQ'i»n't«e.rVfe.:1"e with the impugned order passed by__ the Ta_hsf1A'}vd_are,» .

Writ Petitions are cviisrnisseﬂd, x Sd/-» Chief Justice Sd/~ Tudge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court