Karnataka High Court
Somashekhar Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2019
Bench: Chief Justice, H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NOs.3492-3494/2019 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
1. SOMASHEKHAR REDDY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
S/O NEELAKANTA REDDY
R/AT K.M.D. COLONY
M.I.G-107, GANDHI NAGAR
SANGANAKALLU ROAD
BALLARI-583 103.
2. SMT. CHAITRA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
W/O KRISHNA BHAT
NO.305, SAI SRINIVAS HILLS
4TH MAIN ROAD, BSK 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU-560 085.
3. KRISHNA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
NO.305, SAI SRINIVAS HILLS
OPPOSITE BSNL OFFICE
4TH MAIN ROAD, BSK 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU-560 085.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI.R.G.KOLLE, ADVOCATE)
-2-
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR & COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST &
COMPETENT AUTHORITY
DMG, BALLARI-583 104.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER &
CHAIRMAN,
DISTRICT TASK FORCE(M) COMMITTEE,
OPPOSITE RAILWAY STATION
BALLARI-583 101.
6. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BELLARI CIRCLE, MOTI CIRCLE
BALLARI-583 101.
7. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
OFFICE OF THE DCF, NEAR ZOO
BALLARI-583 101.
8. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE RFO
FOREST DEPARTMENT
BALLARI-583 101.
9. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
-3-
TO DEPT. OF FOREST
ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT
M.S.BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001.
10. THE PRINCIPAL
CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
HEAD OF FOREST FORCE
OFFICE OF THE PCCF
ARANYA BHAVAN, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003.
11. H.R. SHIVASHANKAR
S/O RUDRAPPA
R/AT PRATAPAREDDY NAGAR
HALAKUNDI POST, BELLARI
BALLARI-583 102.
12. M/S BELLARY GARMENTS EXPORTS
CLUSTER PVT. LTD.,
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
MOHAMMED AYUB
S/O ABDUL AZIZ
NARAYANKRUPA COMPLEX
NEW BUS STAND ROAD
BALLARI-583 102.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP, For R 1 to R10
SRI.MANJUNATH M HEGDE, ADV. FOR R11)
---
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE
ENDORSEMENTS DATED:09.07.2018 AND 02.07.2018
PASSED BY R-4 SENIOR GEOLOGIST AND R-7 DCF
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-A AND F RESPECTIVELY,
DECLARING THE QUARRY LEASE APPLICATIONS
DATED:02.02.2016 FILED BY THESE PETITIONERS
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B, B1, B2 AS "IN-ELGIBLE"
-4-
SEEKING TO EXTRACT MURRAM, WHICH IS A NON-
SPECIFIED MINOR MINERAL OVER AN AREA OF 23.00
ACRES, 19.00 ACRES AND 19.00 ACRES TOTALLY 61.00
ACRES IN GOVT. GAYALU LAND AT SY. NO.122/A OF
AALADALLI VILLAGE, BELLARY TALUKA, BELLARY
DISTRICT AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the first to tenth respondents.
2. Considering the reliefs claimed in the writ petitions, neither the eleventh respondent nor the twelfth respondent are necessary parties.
3. The challenge in these writ petitions is to an intimation dated 9th July 2018 issued by the Senior Geologist. The application made by the petitioners for grant of Murram quarrying lease has been rejected on the ground that firstly in the affidavit submitted before the Apex Court, the land in question is shown as a deemed forest. -5- Secondly, It is observed in the impugned endorsement that there is a proposal to notify the land under Section 4 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.
4. After having heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the first to tenth respondents, we find that an enquiry ought to have been made whether the land in respect of which lease was sought is a 'forest' or 'forest land' within the meaning of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the meaning given to the said terms by the Apex Court. It appears that no such enquiry was made.
5. The impugned order is based on the opinion given by an officer of the Forest Department. Even the said opinion dated 25th June 2018 does not show that any such enquiry was made. Only on this ground, we propose to set aside the impugned order with a direction to consider the application in the light of the observations made in this writ petitions.
-6-
6. Accordingly, the petitions are partly allowed. The impugned intimation dated 9th July 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside.
7. The application made by the petitioners for grant of quarrying lease shall be decided afresh within a period of three months from today. The concerned authority will be guided by the judgment and order dated 12th June 2019 passed by this Court in W.P.54476/2016 c/w W.P.No.51135/2016.
8. We also make it clear that we have not considered the effect of applicability of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 8-B of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and the said issue is kept open.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE DM