Karnataka High Court
M Kokila vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... on 2 April, 2009
Equivalent citations: 2009 (6) AIR KANT HCR 69, 2009 A I H C 3654 (2009) 6 KANT LJ 590, (2009) 6 KANT LJ 590
UP THE BEPUTY DERECTSR DEPT' OF' MINE8 AND GEDLOGY CHAMARAJANAGAR, CHAMARAJANAGAR D18'? Ric'?
THE} I}E¥'U'?Y CGMMESSIONER CHAMARAJAN&GAF<Z , CHAMARAJANAGAR? QISTRICT.
~eQo~ w.A is filed u/ M &;r:r;e High Cour: Act against the order dated_ 7?'1}i--2§}Of}«.fV_~1:§assed in Writ I~"etit:ieI1No. 354.57/2eee;e..':: * 1 AV This for --._f1ite:he§"W§eeam'ng before the Court (£3433, 'u.pe:1.'iv'e.heariIig,V" Gopaia Gowda, J deiivered....f;k;e'.f{i11f§§;§zi;1g:_4 ,}§.ppee_l heard and reserved 021 Si£1ee.--;j:1dgnent could not be pronounced zjjeemzhs, in View ef the decision of Supreme we exit iisteé to remhear this case. '2, There is I10 representation on behalf of the "ii ppeiiant. We have perused the order passed by the K : 1e§a1':ned single Judge. There is delay in filing the appea}. I.A.I/2006 is filed te condone the same. Accepting the reasons mentioned and eppiying the I"8¢$i{} ef the
- _ ;2%5?« iggeefi 3 eecision reported in AIR 2000 SC 2306, We..___a1i0w i.A.I/ 2006 9.116 cendone the delay.
3. The issue invoived in this case is',.':ivhet,¥:ef the owners :31' Patta leads on ere ' being carried on, are requireé1V_t'0_A'obtaL#1"eoni%efsiei?a_ under Section 95 of the; Kamééitaka Act of 3964, as qI1aI:yiI1g,t)f.V_e1iI3f:5f' is éi;1'()t'a@'ic1,:1tura} operation. The J dismissed a batch of Wm; of the appellant herein, appeal.
the appeilants strongly re1iee *« '£11331/1 of this Court in W.i?-.No.456~3 / Cf}flI1(':Ct€d cases disposed of on {M;'VEERAMADHU vs DEPUTY :C_€§IvI,fs?£Ii5§S'fON:TeR). Learned At:idl.G<'3Vernment Advecate ea-nte;1tieéi'.~*i}1at fer carrying on mirxing activities in the nPattev;_ie;nds, convereien under Section 95 of Karnatake A' Revenue Act is required as quarrying is net = ---§1g1'ieu1tura} eperation. The learned single Judge elaborately gene into this Iegal issue with reference to V various d€:CiS§{}I1S of the Apex Court inciué{:ir1§j--._ihe aforementionefi decision in Vee:*am&dhu's"- ¢asci:. (:f Court and. heki that the observ;3;t§%}:1s. 1:i.ad$ constitute obiter dicta not Vlaying. do'§V;1A':'a1'i§V.». "T§ie.u reasons assigxzed ta arrive éxtrstlch a*--{:_C1*1nfIusi'Q11Ware, in' fly that case questierzi' vgf and ""i:1"terpreting Section 95 of the Act difj secondly, ever since the t:i€Ci;:3ii)13.":rendére§§~.»§eCtif$I1 95 of the Act underwein: if;_'();flSiCi<t"tI'£_3'3I5'1{?"{;'I7Ia1*£f§,(§S and therefore the decision r«5t'ri1:2.e:jc-3:1' esfiffifi :9 such amenciments 0311120:
be appiisad to"t3?1éé ~§:3;"-esjegitgércvisiolis of the Act. 5: ag*icu1mra} lands. In such " ,l¢f1?1§"'§ig%is::§1£turé}.:'éperations have to be carried--out. As I . Vp$_r'V :3$€£:i:¥Qf:'.'V-i§~{'}) of Karnataka Land Refonns Act, 1961 "é£g1'ic1:I'L1ii*<é" inciudes acquaculture, horticulture, A. Ii?fi_.iSiI:1g..0fCFOpS, grass or garden. yroduce, dairy' faiming, fa1:"mi2'1g, breeding of livestock and gajairxg. It "does not includa mix1i1:1g er quaztryizag. In View cf availability of minor minerais in patta lands, quariying e:>pera1:i0n$ are being carriad on. It amounts to cthanga \\~/ waI'raI2t interference by this Ccurt in exercise ef» this Court'e Appeliate Juxésdiction and power
6. We may also add that for operatiens, :10 conversion, 1icerise'O:* pe.nI1it._req'£1ired Whereas for <:am'yi11g on ep,er"a'{ie1;s" te' eXf:€::1ei:..L miner mineral, eenversien teiicier SeC$ie:'1e95 the Act, license defined wvfor their transportatorz V§ez'n1ife_ Section 2(1)) of Kanmetake :e1i:j%u§~'Vna§~ee;ei': muss, 1994 are required. efipeflant--writ petitioners eannef; He*'iti1o12t conversion order, licenee' ' -..:_ :Cénsequenfly, the decision in Vee:-a:nad1.Vm'$' 'case' has no application and reliance . " .§i7e.eefi'fi it is Ineie;-éfiiaoed anti iegai eontentien urged by .V_t;;'-i1'_e éTA1eei;'1'*;:f1»:_ex'3.AV.T'Vv'S:é3I1i0r Counsel placing reiiance upon the sei-é ciecieien is whelly untenable ix}. law.
Further We e,t'e'in respectfu} egeemem, with the '"'._Vfi:r1diings and reasons recorded by the ieamed single ' ' "judge on the eexztentioue poixzte raieefi in the Writ petition, which are answered against the Appeilant in W