BETWEEN: 1. SMT MAHADEVAMMA W/O MAHADEVAIAH R/AT KEREPALYA HAMLET OF ANCHIKUPPE MADABAL HOBLI MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DSTIRICT.

Transcription

1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.VIKRAMAJIT SEN, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.37056/2011(GM-MMS-PIL) BETWEEN: 1. SMT MAHADEVAMMA W/O MAHADEVAIAH R/AT KEREPALYA HAMLET OF ANCHIKUPPE RAMANAGARAM DSTIRICT. 2. SMT PUTTAMMA W/O MANCHAIAH R/AT MAREGOWDANA DODDI HANCHIKUPPE VILLAGE 3. SMT MEHRUNISA W/O LATE ABDUL BASEER R/AT HANCHIKUPPE VILLAGE, 4. SRI T SHIVANNA S/O LATE THIMMAIAH R/AT KEREPALYA HAMLET OF ANCHIKUPPE 5. SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O LATE DESHAPPA R/AT KEREPALYA HAMLET OF ANCHIKUPPE,

2 6. SRI NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE THIMMAIAH R/AT KEREPALYA HAMLET OF ANCHIKUPPE 7. SRI MALLAIAH S/O LATE MAKALI CHIKKANNA R/AT GAVINAGAMANGALA RAMANAGARAM DSITRICT SRI ABDUL SUBAN SAB S/O ABDUL NABI SAB R/AT ANCHIKUPPE VILLAGE, RAMANAGARAM DSITRICT. 9. SRI THOPAIAH S/O LATE SHMABAIAH R/AT GAVI NAGAMANGALA RAMANAGARAM DSITRICT. 10. SRI SANNARAMA S R NAYAK S/O LT SEETHA NAYAK R/AT GAVI NAGAMANGALA RAMANAGARAM DSITRICT. 11. SRI NAGARAJU S/O LATE LINGAIAH R/AT GAVI NAGAMANGALA RAMANAGARAM DSITRICT.... PETITIONERS (BY Sri T SESHAGIRI RAO & SUNIL S RAO,ADVS.)

3 3 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES REPRESETNED BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 1 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE 1 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES & GEOLOGY RAMANAGARA NEAR IJOOR POLICE STATION NORTH EXTENSION, B M RAOD, RAMANAGARA 4. THE CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REGINOAL OFFICE, NO.911/608/2, SLN COMPLEX, NEAR H.G.GAS AGENCY B.G.S.HOSPITAL ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGARA, RAMANAGARA RAMANAGARA DISTIRCT. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DSITRICT RAMANAGARA. 6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION, RAMANAGARA 7. THE TAHSILDAR MAGADI TUK, MAGADI,

4 4 8. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS REGIONAL DIVISION, RAMANAGARA 9. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS RAMANAGARA SUB DIVN., RAMANAGARA 10. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER MAGADI RANGE MAGADI 11. THE SECRETARY ANCHIKUPPE GRAMA PANCHAYAT VEEREGOWDANA DODDI MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DSITRICT. 12. SRI ASWATH S/O YALAKKI GOWDA R/AT DUNDENAHALLI THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, 13. SRI KARTHIKESH OM PRAKASH S/O OM PRAKASH MAJOR R/ATNO.4C JAGRUTHI 6TH SECTOR, II BLOCK 14TH CROSS IST MAIN, HSR LAYOUT BANGALORE RESPONDENTS (By Sri R G KOLLE AGA FOR R1-3 & 5-10, SRI GANGADHAR SANGOLLI, ADV.FOR R4, SRI ASHOK HARNAHALLI, SR.COUNSEL A/W.SRI K.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R12 AND 13, SRI A.G.SHIVANNA, KISHOR KUMAR H.N., ADV. FOR A.G.SHIVANNA ASSTS., ADV. FOR R11.) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO QUASH A) NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 GRANTING OF QUARRY LEASE IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT NO.12

5 5 DATED , FOUND AT ANNEXURE E TO THE WRIT PETITION.B)THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 GRANTING QUARRY IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT NO.13 DATED , FOUND AT ANNEXURE E1 TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER VIKRAMAJIT SEN, C.J. (Oral) : This petition, in the guise of a public interest litigation, prayed for the cancellation of two quarrying leases issued in favour of respondent no.12 being Q.L.1353/ and Q.L.1354/ in respect of five acres each in Sy.No.76 of Hanchikuppe Village, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District as found at Annexures F and F1 respectively. 2. The gravamen of the petition was that, the quarry lease covered `Gomal land and therefore, they ought to be quashed. In this respect, reliance has been placed on the circular dated which inter alia noted the following points: As areas of Gomal Lands wherein Mining Leases (which) were granted previously consist of huge and hard rocks and as there is no chance of growing grass or any other type of plants, because mining operations being carried out, for many years there are no feature of Gomal, if these areas are reserved as Gomal, no purpose will be

6 served and this would attract persons who indulge in illegal mining operations. 2. Areas though identified as Gomal lands but as these lands are covered by rocks and cannot be used as Gomal lands, if for these lands mining lease is not granted, it would encourage illegal mining. Taking into consideration all these facts and other relevant factors and in its background and basis, the lands which are classified as Gomal lands but covered with huge and hard rocks the opportunity for quarrying (mining) can be granted. In this regard, following guidelines have been framed. 6 a) In Gomal lands wherein mining operations being done for many years, if according to Joint Spot Inspection by the authorities belonging to Revenue Department, and Mines and Geology Departments, the lands consists of broken boulders and covered with rocks and unfertile, Gomal, in such cases mining leases can be renewed. b) Accordingly, lands covered by huge and hard rocks but classified as Gomal lands and after Joint Spot Inspection by the authorities of Revenue Department, as well as Mines and Geology Departments, the lands can be leased out to fresh applicants for mining. c) The Commissioner of the concerned sub-division and Senior Geologist/Geologist of the concerned District shall be authorized Authorities for the purposes of Joint Spot Inspection.

7 7 d) While taking action as per (a) and (b) other relevant rules shall also be followed. e) If the forest lands is extended into Gomal lands, no mining lease shall be granted in such cases. 3. The grant of lease in `Gomal lands covered by this circular was challenged before the Division Bench which by its order dated (WP No.28225/1999 in the case of K.V.Vishwanatha vs. State of Karnataka) found that Sec.71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 would prohibit the grant of said quarrying leases in `Gomal land since the ubiquitous presence of rocks made it difficult for pastures to grow in such land. The decision in Katappa s case (ILR 2001 KAR 2363) came up for consideration before Full Bench. This conclusion also came up for consideration before a Full Bench which by its order dated (WP No.25037/1999 in the case of D.C.Ramesh vs. State of Karnataka) concluded that the decisions in K.Vishwanath s case supra and Katappa s case were not in conflict with each other and established the same proposition of law. Full Bench affirmed the ratio laid down in K.V.Vishwanath. This being the position, the petitioners have altered their challenge, or atleast have laid stress on the existence of a water body in close proximity of the Q.Ls.

8 8 4. Pursuant to the orders passed in these proceedings, the Tahsildar, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District has filed an affidavit, the salient contents of which read as follows: 4.I further say that if a Safer Zone of 200 mtrs. is to be maintained from the building A, nearly 1 acre 10 guntas of land is to be given up by the lease holder of Q.L. No.1353 and to that extent, a line has been drawn. 5. In aforesaid map, the boundary of Sy.No.81 which is a water body marked as C which is 150 mtrs away from the nearest boundary of Q.L.No If a Safer Zone of 200 mtrs. is to be maintained, the lease holder of Q.L.No.1354 has to give up an area of 35 guntas in a corner which is marked by a separate line. 5. Responding to this report, respondent no.12 as well as respondent no.13 have filed affidavits to the effect that they are willing to relinquish all claims over the lands which come within the proximity of 200 meters of such pond/water body or house/building. These affidavits are taken on record. The effect is that, the quarry leases shall be deemed to have been amended to the extent indicated in the Tahsildar s report, the site plan also corresponds to the plans annexed to the respective affidavits of respondent nos. 12 and 13. This will have an effect to ensure that no quarrying activity takes place within 200 meters proximity, either of the water body or buildings already in existence.

9 9 6. By operation of law, stone crushing activity throughout the State of Karnataka has been severally restricted. Safer Zones have now been demarcated and indicated by the State Government. The effect is that, stone crushing is no longer permissible with the quarrying lease because the safer zones have not been located therein. 7. We would have expected that this would have satisfied the petitioners cause. However, it is now contended that coconut groves as well as human habitation exists in the environs of the quarrying leases and that despite the report of the Tahsildar and relinquishment of rights by the concerned respondents that quarrying will not be permitted. Our attention has been drawn to para nos. 26 and 27 of the writ petition in which, reference is made to petitioner no.1 s possession of Sy.No.110 and petitioner no.2 s possession over Sy.No.76/3. The effort therefore is to transform this ostensible public interest litigation to personal interest litigation. The Sy.Nos. in which the lands of petitioner no.1 and no.2 are situate, adjoin Q.L Keeping the objections raised before us in perspective, we are of the opinion that the petition was not in public interest but, rather was to further the personal interest atleast of petitioner nos. 1 and 2. This is an abuse of this

10 10 Court s jurisdiction. We therefore, dismiss the petition with costs of Rs.2,500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred only) on each of petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 to be paid to the Chief Minister s Relief Fund within two weeks from today. If the costs are not paid, recovery shall be made by State as arrears of land revenue. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Sk/-