Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This appeal is directed against the orders passed on I.A. No. 1 in O.S No. 36 of 2001, on the file of the Vacation Judge (Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, dated 26-5-2001. rejecting the application for grant of temporary injunction.

2. The plaintiff, M/s. Shantha Exports Private Limited is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act carrying on the business activities in granites throughout the State of Karnataka. Likewise, the plaintiff applied for issue of licence to conduct the quarrying operation of multi colour granite blocks deposited in Survey No. 67 of Kebbehalli Village, Kanakapura Taluk. The authorities of Department of Mines and Geology inspected the suit schedule property. The same was considered by the committee constituted under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules for which Forest Secretary was also a party and thereafter a notification was issued by the Department of Mines and Geology for inspection of the property in question. After inspection, a lease agreement came to be executed with effect from 1-9-1999 for the period of 10 years between the plaintiff and the Government of Karnataka, represented by the Department of Mines and Geology. The schedule property measuring 10 acres is a Government gomal land in which Forest Department has no right or control. However, the defendants 4 to 6 are unlawfully interfering with the quarrying operations of the plaintiff claiming that the suit schedule property is also a forest land. The claim of the defendants 4 to 6 is without any justification. As per the entries in the revenue records, the suit property remained as a revenue land, which was mainly used for grazing of cattle, and thereby it was classified as a gomal land.

3. The plaintiff filed a Writ Petition No. 32978 of 1999 before this Court for a mandamus to direct the respondents not to interfere with the rights of the plaintiff and to carry on quarrying operation in the suit schedule property. An order was passed in the said writ petition directing the appropriate committee to examine the matter afresh, after local inspection and to take a decision within a period of two months. The plaintiff made representation to the Competent Authority for conducting survey of the entire extent of land in the presence of the various officials to earmark the boundaries of the schedule property. The Assistant Director of Land Records issued notice to the concerned authorities for conducting survey. The Government wrote a letter dated 4-10-2000 directing the authorities to demark the area. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District addressed a letter dated 16-10-2000 to the Assistant Director of Land Records for conducting "durasthi work". It is in pursuance of it, a map was prepared demarcating the suit schedule property by letters A, B and C, the area which was leased in favour of the plaintiff, showing the same as gomal land and that a mutation has also taken place. It clearly establishes the fact that the defendants/authorities after examining the records satisfying themselves stated that the suit schedule property is a gomal land and the property was leased in favour of the plaintiff/company. Therefore, the obstruction by the defendants 4 to 6 is untenable. In spite of repeated requests and representations, the Forest Department went on obstructing the mining activities. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction with an application for temporary injunction to restrain the defendants/authorities from interfering with the suit schedule property.

The learned Vacation Judge after hearing both sides by an order dated 26-5-2001 vacated the order of injunction by dismissing LA. No. 1 and allowing I.A. No. 3 filed in miscellaneous petition. It is this order, which is now questioned by the plaintiff in the present appeal.

5. The learned Senior Counsel Shri R.N. Narasimha Murthy for the appellant vehemently contended that in a suit for injunction what is required to be considered is whether there is (i) a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff? (ii) the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and in the event if an order of injunction is not granted whether the plaintiff will be put into irreparable loss? It is contended that the suit property measuring 10 acres was leased in favour of the plaintiff by an agreement dated 1-9-1999 for a period of 10 years. The plaintiff has also deposited the required amount of Rs. 50,000/-. After all the formalities, while the plaintiff, M/s. Shantha Exports Private Limited having invested crores' of rupees and carrying on with the quarrying operation the defendants 4 to 6 put forth their claim stating that it is a forest land. This itself shows that it is an afterthought. The Forest Department having participated in the earlier proceedings in the meetings of the Committee and having kept quiet, it cannot be permitted to contend that the suit property is a forest land. It is clear from the earlier report that the portion demarcated as A, B and C in the map clearly identified as a gomal land. Therefore, the Forest Department, i.e., defendants 4 to 6 does not have any right, title and interest whatsoever. Even otherwise if it is found that it is a forest land according to defendants 4 to 6, their remedy is elsewhere for cancellation of the lease. Unless and until the lease is cancelled, the possession of the plaintiff is required to be protected. Therefore, he contended that the impugned order of the learned Trial Judge is not sustainable. Further, contended that the Trial Court has not considered and appreciated the facts properly. The question whether it is a forest land or gomal land is a matter to be considered at the time of trial. Till such time, the possession of the plaintiff has to be protected by restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit property. The mutation entry shows that it is a gomal land. When once the revenue records show that it is a gomal land, the principles laid down in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkapad v. Union of India and Ors., , are not applicable to the facts of the case. It is also sought to be contended that when the Government itself has leased the property, it cannot obstruct the possession of the plaintiff without cancelling the lease. On this ground, prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the Vacation Judge,

Therefore, justified the impugned order. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the appeal.

7. In the light of the submissions, the point for consideration that arises in this appeal is:

"Whether the impugned order is capricious and unreasonable, suffers from infirmity? If so liable to be interfered with?"

8. That by a Gazette notification dated 10th March, 1926 published in the Mysore Gazette on 18th March, 1926, an extent of 1,083 acres 22 guntas in Blocks 'A', 'B' and 'C' of Bettadahalliwade was declared as a State Forest land as per Section 17 of the Mysore Forest Regulations (XI of 1900). The subject-matter which we are now concerned is Survey No. 67, situated in Block 'A' of the said notification, wherein the suit schedule property is a part and parcel of Survey No, 67 of Kebbehalli Village, Kanakapura Taluk. It is the claim of the plaintiff that insofar as an extent of 10 acres described in the suit schedule property is a Government gomal land for which the plaintiff applied for grant of licence with the Department of Mines and Geology for quarrying of granites deposited in the said land. It is the further case of the plaintiff that after a formal inspection of the land by the Department of Mines and Geology and also on the basis of the report of the Under Secretary, Revenue Department dated 4-10-2000, it was found that the suit land is a gomal, therefore, recommended for grant of licence. It is on the basis of the said recommendation, the Director of Mines and Geology executed a quarrying lease agreement in favour of M/s. Shantha Exports (Private) Limited, whereas it is the definite case of the defendants 4 to 6 that the suit schedule property is the forest land and at no point of time, it is denoti-fied for any other purpose much less as a gomal land. At this stage, it is relevant to mention the observation made in the Writ Petition No. 32978 of 1999, passed by this Court on 5-10-1999 which reads as follows: