Karnataka High Court
Sri V Sampangi Ramaiah vs The Director/Commissioner Department ... on 25 June, 2009
Author: V.G.Sabhahit
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit
IN' THE HIGH coum' op' KARNATAKA AT' 4 V
DATED 'i'HiS THE 25% DAY c:.~.}é~.Ji}1¢T1r«:_'
PHI?-SI?-..l§'I' V ._
THE HOWBLE MR. 9.13. D11~_If+§KVAR.5N, Jtfsrrca
THE HODPBLE MRf;qU$i'§«§E"v.é}ésm3HAHrr
:1V=wIfI'1:i<_)';<i' N1(3.%i:§*7'0s;f2oos
1
'1?RQ9R1Et-:{)R;'V%
wigs GAJANANAQRANEFES
No.7/47 1,"AB'I, 'iS'I"'*--FLOOR
SOU'l'HEF!N EX'J?,ENSIGN
; % KQLLEGAL Towra
~c;1;Arg1ARAJAzs:._A<;AR msrmcr. PETI'I'IONER
A $ri;, PR_z2i§A.sH B 3, ADVOCATE. )
A1113»;
1 " frixabiaacroajcommzssxonaa
mi-:a>AR'rMEm' our MINES &
AA ' *- 4_ GEOLOGY
=_ KHANIJABHAVANA,
R.C.RC)AE),
BANGALORE 560001
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES 8: GEOLOGY
CHAMARAJANAGAR DIVISION
CHAMARAJANAGAR ... RESP(3NDEN'I'S.
(By Sri :BASAVARAJ KAREDDY", GA FOR R1 89 2. 3: L
THIS WP 18 FILED PRAYING TO QUASH_'i;J};I.uE4"(f§I_€'lZ:$I.3:5;§?_:.A
EYI'. 17.10.2008 PASSED BY THE DEPUTYOR,
DEPARMENT 01? MINES V J AND' 'A " ~ --.Tc;Eox.oG"2.',
CHAMARAJANAGAR WHO IS THE' R2";-zERE1_N,. WHICH' IS:
PRODUCED ATANNEXURE A. "
This Writ p4:liti011 i£'>w--*!;():Ir:l113' " g ' 1-icanng'
on this flay, J, the
%fijea'ua¢¢§;~ Articles 2126 and 227 of
the by the noficc dated
17 /22. 1o.":zo_06, i$s:_£ea,_ 'i;3{1"..'%«the Deputy Director, Dcparmem
_ of and Chamarajanagar--second respondent
pétitiqn as per Anncxure~»A to the Writ petition.
" 2.v_I't'L:i$'T;avcrred in the petition that petitioner is the pmpriefidr of M/s.Gajanana Gxanitas, a reputed concern A ' _ ' in granite and building stages and qnmxymg lcase % granted in respect of 12.30 acres of iand situated in m'Sy.No.601/A2 of Mudigunda village, Koilegal Taluk to the petitioner in the month of February, 2()94. Thc sak} V' 4 Divisional Forest Otficer thmatened to seize the and arrest the labourers in the event of non~e:>mp}§e;fi¢§e'} Being aggrieved by the same, t W.P.No.17941[2005 before this order dated 16.8.2007 the xént lpeeeontagtie the notice issued by noticing that the é pendenoy of the Writ peueofi, of Mines and of the Divisional Forest which also came to be chaliengeti V.fi1eA'*_ fiietitiooer in Revision Petition ' befoi'e"'ii1e Joint Director of Mines md Geology The said revision petition wee aliowed on order of cancellation of the lme passed by fiepfity Bimxttozr, came to be set aside. The petitiomzr V' Karnataka State Pollution Control Board for ' ooneent and obtained consent for operafing the crusher. " WiI'>espite this factual position, to the utter shock anti surprise of the petitioner, the second respondent»-Deputy Director, \) (E?) ixnpugmtd notice has been. issued _a;:f1d__the1_'i:hf§z"j¢',:: is u u devoid (if any merit and name to
4. We have heard the for V' the petitioner and A' écvgmfiéfit Advocatn appearing for the V'
5. fc;r the petitioner submitted been passed without giving Vz1"c3"t':ia:t':: : " the notice is in the form the petitioner to step quarrying "t3%s§i1spo11ing the mineral, the same V. A_ I1§t 1§ avc'Ijt;:«_=n_'_(ion.e without giving opportunity to the has bwn held in the earlier proceedings passed in the Writ petmo' ' 11 passed by this V -V j1ri§i'.'P}.VNo.17941/2005 that quarrying lease yanted to H u " :ti;epetiVti3oner is in revenue land and therefore, the imp-ugacd mm; is liable to be quashed.
\} 7
6. Learned Government Advocate quarrying lease is granted in respeet o§A_a~ declared as a forest land caxried on without Hprior .. of: Centml Government under the ._Conservation Act and therefore, there is Qt}
7. to the contenfig-ns_ §)frth;g.: for the parties and on iecord.
8. The would clearly show that the . Q_ pefiiiipnef has quarrying lease on 27.2.2004 far fly-eeVyea;s.%i.{5.:y.No.5o:/A1 measluing 12.30 acres. It is observations mafie by this court in w.§'.":vg."e--§??94'1/2005 dated 35.3.2007 wherein the petitioner H 'A hemfin chaiknged the notice iseued by the respondent "'i;iV:iéa't":tl3c quarxying lease is granted in 3. revenue land. "However, accxarding to the respondents, the said land has not been notified as a foresflmd. In any View of the matter, K/'~ ' Inr&:i:c":s.::A §'e§}' V "
and Geologr, Chamarajanagar, is quashed with libgttf second respondent to hold a detail enquiry of land in mspect of which lease ta * petitioner and thereafter, pass The Writ p;:'ti1;'on . . , , " VA ., 3 Sd/"
JUDGE W<+1:'o"'%I~A~Ios.1&:;