Disposed

Sankayya Shetty v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2021WP/15784/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka examined a plea challenging the cancellation of a quarry lease notification. It held that non-execution of the lease within six months leads to automatic revocation and clarified the Competent Authority's power to extend this period. The petition was disposed of by granting the petitioner time to apply for an extension.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed one month to apply to the Competent Authority for an extension of the lease period.

Sankayya Shetty Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO . 15784 OF 2020 (GM-MM-S)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SANKAYYA SHETTY S/O K.VITTALA SHETTY AGED 59 YEARS RESIDING AT ‘PARISHRAMA’ NEAR MGHS, YADTADI VILLAGE SAIBARAKATTE-576 210. UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶10

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

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHAN SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

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

¶15

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST & COMPETENT AUTHORITY,

¶16

¶17

DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY 1^ST FLOOR, ‘A’ BLOCK, RAJATADRI MANIPAL UDUPI-576 104.

¶18

THE MEMBER SECRETARY STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA) DEPT. OF FORESTS, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SHRI I.TARANATH POOJARY, AGA)

¶21

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING 4^TH RESPONDENT SENIOR GEOLOGIST AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AND REGISTER A QUARRY LEASE TO EXTRACT ORDINARY BUILDING STONE IN GOVT. LAND AT SY. No.130/P1 OF 33^RD SHIRURU VILLAGE IN BRAHMAVAR TALUKA, UDUPI DISTRICT OVER AN AREA OF 01.00 ACRES AS PER GRANT NOTIFICATION AND APPROVED QUARRY PLAN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND E RESPECTIVELY BY QUASHING OR SETTING ASIDE THE WITHDRAWAL/CANCELLATION ORDER ISSUED BY 4^TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.9.2020 AT ANNEXURE-1, AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Issue notice to the first to fourth respondents. The learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the said respondents. Considering the order which we propose to pass, notice to the fifth respondent may not be necessary.

¶27

The petitioner applied for grant of a quarrying lease under the provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, “the said Rules”). A notification dated 9^th July, 2019 (Annexure-B) was issued by the Senior Geologist ordering grant of lease for quarrying of building stone to the petitioner subject to conditions incorporated in the said order. One of the conditions was to obtain Environment Clearance Certificate from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (fifth respondent). By the impugned endorsement, the notification at Annexure-B has been withdrawn on the ground that revenue and forest No Objection Certificates (NOC) were not received within the specified period.

¶28

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that there is no provision in the said Rules

¶29

¶30

for cancellation of the notification at Annexure-B. His submission is that only Environment Clearance Certificate is required to be produced and the application for grant of such a certificate is pending before the fifth respondent. The submission is that the jurisdictional Tahsildar and the Deputy Conservator of Forests have issued NOC.

¶31

The learned Additional Government Advocate opposes the petition by pointing out that as the lease deed is not got executed within a period of six months from the date of the order granting the lease, there is an automatic revocation of the said order, as provided in sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the said Rules. He submitted that revocation of the order granting lease is automatic on the expiry of six months from the date of the order.

¶32

We have given careful consideration to the submissions. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the said Rules as amended with effect from 12^th August, 2016 reads thus:

¶33

“ 18. Execution of quarrying lease for quarry license or prospecting license or composite license:

¶34

(1) When a quarrying lease or quarry license or prospecting license or composite license is

¶35

¶36

granted, the quarry lease, quarry license, prospecting license or composite license, shall be got executed in Form-E by the grantee within six months of the order granting or renewing the lease or within such further period as the Competent Authority may allow in this behalf and if no such lease deed is executed within the aforesaid period, the order granting or renewing the lease shall be deemed to have been revoked.”

¶37

(underline added)

¶38

On a plain reading of the said provision, it is clear that when an order is made for grant of quarrying lease, the same shall be got executed by the proposed lessee within a period of six months from the date of the order. However, the Competent Authority retains the power to extend the stipulated period of six months. If the lease deed is not got executed within six months or within such time as may be extended by the Competent Authority, there is an automatic revocation of the order granting lease.

¶39

Coming to the facts of the case, the Competent Authority has not even considered the question of exercise of power of extending the period of lease by six months as provided in sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the said Rules. The power could have been exercised by the Competent Authority on its own or on the basis of an application made

¶40

¶41

by the proposed lessee. ‘Competent Authority’ is defined under clause (b) of Rule 2 of the said Rules to mean a Competent Authority appointed under Rule 4 of the said Rules.

¶42

In fact, sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the said Rules provides for automatic revocation of the order granting lease. Therefore, there was no necessity of issuing the impugned endorsement in this case. Notwithstanding the endorsement, as there is a clear power vesting in the Competent Authority to extend the period of six months, a prayer, if made by the petitioner for grant of extension of time, can be always considered.

¶43

Therefore, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) It will be open for the petitioner to apply for grant of extension of time to the Competent Authority as provided in sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the said Rules;

¶46

(ii) If such an application is made within a period of one month from today, the Competent Authority shall decide

¶47

¶48

the same in accordance with law within one month from the date of filing of the application. The application shall be decided without being influenced by the endorsement at Annexure-A;

¶49

(iii) On the failure of the petitioner to make an application as aforesaid within a period of one month from today, the impugned endorsement at Annexure-A will operate;

¶50

(iv) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the question whether the petitioner has made out a case for grant of extension of time as provided under sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the said Rules. The said

¶51

issue is left open to be decided by the Competent Authority;

¶52

(v) The petition is disposed of on the above terms.

¶53

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

vgh*

Sankayya Shetty v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankayya Shetty 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

S Rangaswamy Vs Sri G C Prakash

Smt. Sujatha. C Vs Sri. G. Sridhar

Mrs. Jyothika Dwarakanath Vs Dr. G.C. Prakash

Zaheer Abbas Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B Kempegowda Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. B K Praveen Kumar Vs Sri. N.M. Jagadish