Partly allowed

Somashekhar Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2019WP/3492/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging the rejection of quarrying lease applications. High Court held the authoritiies failed to inquire if the land was 'forest' under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Impugned order quashed; application to be reconsidered within 3 months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned intimation dated 09.07.2018 is quashed. The application for quarrying lease shall be decided afresh within three months guided by this judgment.

Somashekhar Reddy Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2019

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NOs.3492-3494/2019 (GM-MM-S)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SOMASHEKHAR REDDY

¶10

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.

¶11

SMT. CHAITRA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O KRISHNA BHAT NO.305, SAI SRINIVAS HILLS 4^TH MAIN ROAD, BSK 3^RD STAGE BENGALURU-560 085.

¶12

KRISHNA BHAT

¶13

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS NO.305, SAI SRINIVAS HILLS OPPOSITE BSNL OFFICE 4^TH MAIN ROAD, BSK 3^RD STAGE BENGALURU-560 085.

¶14

... PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SHRI.R.G.KOLLE, ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶19

REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

¶20

VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶21

BENGALURU-560 001.

¶22

THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA

¶23

BENGALURU-560 001.

¶24

THE DIRECTOR & COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶25

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST & COMPETENT AUTHORITY

¶26

DMG, BALLARI-583 104.

¶27

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT TASK FORCE(M) COMMITTEE, OPPOSITE RAILWAY STATION

¶28

BALLARI-583 101.

¶29

THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BELLARI CIRCLE, MOTI CIRCLE BALLARI-583 101.

¶30

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS OFFICE OF THE DCF, NEAR ZOO BALLARI-583 101.

¶31

THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER OFFICE OF THE RFO

¶32

FOREST DEPARTMENT BALLARI-583 101.

¶33

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶34

¶35

TO DEPT. OF FOREST ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT M.S.BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001.

¶36

THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS HEAD OF FOREST FORCE OFFICE OF THE PCCF ARANYA BHAVAN, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003.

¶37

H.R. SHIVASHANKAR S/O RUDRAPPA R/AT PRATAPAREDDY NAGAR HALAKUNDI POST, BELLARI BALLARI-583 102.

¶38

M/S BELLARY GARMENTS EXPORTS

¶39

CLUSTER PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MOHAMMED AYUB S/O ABDUL AZIZ NARAYANKRUPA COMPLEX NEW BUS STAND ROAD BALLARI-583 102.

¶40

... RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SHRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP, For R 1 to R10 SRI.MANJUNATH M HEGDE, ADV. FOR R11)

¶42

¶43

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”

¶44

¶45

SEEKING TO EXTRACT MURRAM, WHICH IS A NONSPECIFIED 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.

¶46

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶49

petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader

¶50

for the first to tenth respondents.

¶51

Considering the reliefs claimed in the writ petitions, neither the eleventh respondent nor the twelfth respondent are necessary parties.

¶52

The challenge in these writ petitions is to an intimation dated 9^th 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.

¶53

¶54

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.

¶55

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.

¶56

The impugned order is based on the opinion given by an officer of the Forest Department. Even the said opinion dated 25^th 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.

¶57

¶58

6. Accordingly, the petitions are partly allowed.

¶59

The impugned intimation dated 9^th July 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶60

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 12^th June 2019 passed by this Court in W.P.54476/2016 c/w W.P.No.51135/2016.

¶61

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

¶62

Rules, 1994 and the said issue is kept open.

¶63

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

Somashekhar Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somashekhar Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Hanumappa Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka Industrial Area Vs Shivamma

Kum Thilaka M T Vs the Chief Secretary

M/S Wadi Stone Marketing Co.(P) Ltd,. Vs State of Karnataka

Annayappa Vs State of Karnataka

Muniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka