Dismissed

M/S Gomatesh Granites v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2020WP/17806/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an order cancelling a quarrying lease. The Court held that the petitioner admitted discontinuing quarrying operations for over a year, causing the lease to lapse automatically under the relevant rules, rendering the impugned order unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the quarrying lease had automatically lapsed due to discontinuation of operations for more than one year.

M/S Gomatesh Granites Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.17806/2019 (GM-MM-S)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/s. Gomatesh Granites, Deputy General Manager, Sri A.Madhu, S/o M.Allimuthu, Aged about 52 years, Hirekodagali Quarry, Hirekodagali, Hunugund Taluk, Bagalkote District-587 125.

¶10

Corporate Office at: Near 3^rd Railway Gate, Khanapur Road, Belagavi – 590 008. …PETITIONER (By Sri Amaresh Angadi, Adv. along with Sri C.M.Dhananjaya, Adv)

¶11

AND:

¶12

State of Karnataka, Department of Mines and Geology, Khanija Bhavan,

¶13

¶14

Race Course Road, Bengaluru – 560 001, By its Director.

¶15

Sri Somappa, S/o Mahanthappa Tingunti, Aged about 64 years.

¶16

Sri Devendrappa, S/o Sangappa Kundagola, Aged about 80 years.

¶17

Sri Amaresh, S/o Basappa Yattinamani, Aged about 47 years.

¶18

Smt. Shanthamma, W/o Mallappa Barker, Aged about 48 years.

¶19

Respondents 2 to 5 are residents of Hirekodagali village, Hunagunda Taluk, Bagalkote District-587 125. …RESPONDENTS

¶20

(By Sri I.Tharanath Poojary, AGA for R-1; Sri G.Balakrishna Shastry, Adv. for R-2 to 5)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/22-2-2019 PASSED BY R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner was granted a quarrying lease for a period of 20 years from 24^th January 2002 in Survey No.91 measuring 14 acres situated at Hirekodagli village, Hunagunda Taluk, Bagalkote District, for the purpose of quarrying granite stones (pink granite) as per Quarrying Lease bearing No.814. The respondents 2 to 5 who are the pattadhars of the said land, are said to have given permission to the petitioner for quarrying in the aforesaid land for a period of 25 years as per their consent letter dated 7^th July 1989.

¶26

It appears that there is a dispute with regard to grant of occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, in respect of the aforesaid land bearing Survey No.91 between respondents 2 to 5 and the landlord of the said property. The respondents 2 to 5 claim to be the tenants in respect of the said land and the order granting occupancy rights in their favour has been challenged by the landlord in W.P.No.107502/2014 before this Court (Dharwad Bench), which is pending consideration.

¶27

¶28

The respondents 2 to 5 raised objections for continuation of the lease beyond the period of 25 years from 7^th July 1989 and in this regard, they had given representation to the Director of Mines and Geology Department, for cancellation of the lease. Pursuant to the said representation, a notice was issued to the petitioner by the Director of Mines and Geology Department to produce the consent letter from pattadhars of the land bearing Survey No.91. However, the petitioner appears to have issued a reply to the said notice stating that in view of the dispute between the landlord and the tenants in respect of the very same survey number which is pending consideration in W.P.No.107502/2014, he is not in a position to obtain the consent letter and after disposal of the said writ petition, petitioner will produce the no objection from the pattadhars of the land in question. Being not satisfied with the said reply dated 21^st August 2018 vide Annexure-C submitted by the petitioner, the Director of Mines and Geology Department, has passed the impugned order cancelling the quarrying lease No.814 vide impugned order dated 21^st February 2019. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶29

¶30

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order cancelling the quarrying lease is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that the petitioner’s lease could not have been cancelled invoking sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1994), as the activities in the quarry was in progress throughout. He also submits that the lease was granted for a period of 20 years with effect from 24^th January 2002, which is valid upto 23^rd January 2022, and therefore, during the subsistence of the lease, for want of consent letter of the pattadhars, the lease cannot be cancelled. According to him, it is not the case of the official respondents that the petitioner had violated any terms and conditions of the lease, and therefore, cancellation of the lease deed is not justified.

¶31

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the Director of Mines and Geology has cancelled the quarrying lease on two grounds. Firstly, petitioner has failed to obtain consent from the pattadhars of the land bearing Survey No.91 for the period beyond 6^th July

¶32

¶33

2014 and the petitioner has informed in writing that he is not in a position to obtain the consent of the pattadhars. Secondly, the Integrated Management System maintained by the Department shows that the petitioner has not obtained any permit for transport of the stones extracted for the period beyond 15^th July 2014, and therefore, it is clear that no quarrying activities are carried on in the quarry after 15^th July 2014, and therefore, under sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1994, the lease has lapsed.

¶34

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however during the course of reply submits that at no point of time, the operations in the quarry have been discontinued and eversince the date of grant, continuously the quarrying activities has continued, and according to him, even on this date, the quarrying activities is still in operation.

¶35

In response to the notice dated 2^nd August 2018, the petitioner has submitted a reply dated 21^st August 2018 to the Director of Mines and Geology vide Annexure-C. From the perusal of the said reply, it is seen that the petitioner has specifically admitted that ever since 2014, it has stopped

¶36

¶37

quarrying activities in the land in question. Since the quarrying activities have been stopped continuously for a period of more than one year, sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1994 comes into operation and by fiction of law, the lease lapses automatically. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1994 reads as under:

¶38

“ 6. General conditions of quarrying lease

¶39

and licence.- (1) Where the holder of a quarrying lease or quarrying licence fails to undertake quarrying operations for a period of one year after the date of execution of the lease or date of grant of licence or, having commenced the quarrying operations, has discontinued the same for a period of one year the quarrying lease or the licence shall lapse on the last day of the period of one year:

¶40

Provided that the Competent Authority may, on an application made by the holder of such lease or licence before its expiry and on being satisfied that the holder of such lease or licence could not undertake quarrying operations or continue such operations for reasons beyond his control, make an order, that such lease shall not lapse or where it has already lapsed, order for revival of such lease or licence:

¶41

¶42

Provided further that no order under the first proviso shall be made for more than twice during the entire period of the lease or licence.”

¶43

From the admission made by the petitioner in his reply letter dated 21^st August 2018 submitted to the Director of Mines and Geology, it is very clear that the quarrying operations have been stopped in the land in question continuously for a period of more than one year. From a perusal of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1994, it is apparent that it operates automatically irrespective of the fact whether a specific order of lapsing has been made or not. For the failure on the part of the petitioner to undertake quarrying operations for more than one year, the lease automatically lapses on the last date of the period of one year. Though the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1994 provides for filing an application for revival of the lease, no such application is made by the petitioner in the present case. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that by operation of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1994, the quarrying lease No.814 of the petitioner stood lapsed much prior to the passing of the impugned order.

¶44

¶45

Having regard to the finding recorded by us in respect to automatic lapse of petitioner’s quarrying lease No.814, it would not be necessary for us to record any finding with regard to the legality and correctness of the impugned order cancelling the quarrying lease in question on the ground that the consent letter of the pattadhars of the land bearing Survey No.91 was not produced by the petitioner. The lease in question has lapsed by operation of law much prior to passing of the impugned order.

¶46

For the aforesaid reasons recorded by us, the petitioner is not entitled for the releifs sought for by it in the writ petition. This writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed.

¶47

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

M/S Gomatesh Granites v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Gomatesh Granites 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

K v Rajashekhar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt N M Sukanya Vs Chandrashekar N M

Sri M R Muniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhusan Malleshi Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh Naik.L Vs State of Karnataka

Sri T R Lokesh Vs Sri N Manjunath Prasad