Remanded

M D Kaushik v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Dec 2021WP/7280/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka directed the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, to decide on the issuance of a No Objection Certificate for mining lease renewal within three months. The court noted a conflict between the petitioner's authority to mine and a forest authority's claim that the land is under reserve forest, declining to resolve conflicting facts.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, to decide on the issuance of a No Objection Certificate for mining activities within three months from the date the order is produced before him.

M D Kaushik Vs State of Karnataka — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.7280 OF 2021 (GM-MMS)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

1 . M D KAUSHIK MAJOR S/O R B KAUSHIK HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA - 572 143

¶11

DECEASED AND REPLACED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AS PER ORDER DATED 26.07.2021

¶12

1(a). DINESH KUMAR KAUSHIK

¶13

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS SON OF M.D.KAUSHIK

¶14

RESIDING AT LAKSHMAMMA LAYOUT HULIYAR ROAD HIRIYUR-577598

¶15

1(b). UMESH KAUSHIK

¶16

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS SON OF M.D.KAUSHIK RESIDING AT HULIYAR ROAD LAKSHMAJJI EXTENSION, HIRIYUR CHITRADURGA HIRIYUR-577598

¶17

1(c). PRIYANKA SHARMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WIFE OF UMESH KUMAR SHARMA RESIDING AT 10/13 SHIV KUMAR PURA

¶18

¶19

HOUSING BOARD NAWALGARH ROAD SHIVSINGHPURA KUDLI, SIKAR, RAJASTHAN-332024.

¶20

1(d). KUSUMALATHA SHARMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS WIFE OF PRADEEP KUMAR NO.32, THIRUPUR KANGEYAM, KANGAYAM TIRUPPUR TAMIL NADU - 638701

¶21

...PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI ARAVIND K KAMATH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI BALA NIKIT ADV FOR PETITIONER)

¶23

AND

¶24

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY ROOM NO.320, 3^RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶25

2 . DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY #49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

¶26

3 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT OBAVVA CIRCLE, MANIYUR CHITRADURGA - 577 501

¶27

4 . DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (TERRITORIAL) FOREST DEPARTMENT JCR MAIN RD, MANIYUR CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶28

……RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R-1 TO 4)

¶30

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 3^RD RESPONDENT TO ISSUE NECESSARY NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE AND APPROVAL FOR RESUMPTION OF MINING ACTIVITIES BY THE PETITIONER IN TERMS OF THE GRANT OF APPROVAL BY THE INTIMATION LETTER DATED 24/04/2020 IN NO.DMG/MLS/ML/1599/29-20/166 (ANNEXURE-E) ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT BY ISSUING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER.

¶32

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

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The writ petition has been filed seeking the following

¶35

relief:-

¶36

"Direct the 3^rd respondent to issue necessary No Objection Certificate and approval for resumption of mining activities by the petitioner in terms of the grant of approval by the intimation letter dated 24.04.2020 in No.DMG/MLS/ML/1599/2920/166 (Annexure-E) issued by the 2^nd respondent by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order in the nature of a writ."

¶37

Heard Sri Aravind K. Kamath, learned Senior

¶38

Counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶39

As per the facts of the case in brevity, the

¶40

petitioner was granted a mining lease bearing ML No.1599

¶41

¶42

in respect of Government Land measuring 40 acres in Sy.No.96, Lakkehalli, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District by a mining lease deed dated 08.05.1979 for mining in Iron Ore, Calcite and Manganese Ore. Prior to expiry of the mining lease, the petitioner made an application dated 05.10.1998 for renewal of lease. Pursuant to such request, by a letter dated 24.04.2020, the Director of Mines and Geology informed that the Government has accorded approval for extension of lease in his favour under Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, 'MMDR Act'). However, when the petitioner followed up for No Objection Certificate from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner was informed that the Deputy Conservator of Forest (Territorial) Chitradurga has concluded that the petitioner's lease land falls under the purview of Section 4(1) notification. The petitioner is aggrieved by the erroneous conclusion of respondent No.4 that the petitioner's lease land continues to be under the purview of Section 4(1) notification.

¶43

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Forest Settlement Officer through the

¶44

¶45

letter dated 28.07.2007 has informed that out of 414 acres in Sy.No.96, the proposal to declare as reserve forest may be dropped in respect of 314 acres and continue to proceed with declaration of the balance 100 acres land as reserve forest by issuing a notification under Section 17 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short, 'Act, 1963'). The submission is that the land leased to the petitioner falls within the 314 acres and as such, it can be renewed by issuing NOC to the petitioner.

¶46

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate on the basis of statement of objections submits that none of the proceedings contemplated under Sections 5 to 16 of the Act, 1963 has been forthcoming and no orders of the Forest Settlement Officer either accepting the claim of any person or denying the claim of any person has been passed. As such, the alleged letter of recommendation of the Forest Settlement Officer is not an order passed under the provisions of the Act, 1963. An area notified under sub section 1 of Section 4 of the Act, 1963, has to be dropped in accordance with the provisions of the Act only and it can be construed that a particular portion of the land has been dropped if and only

¶47

¶48

if a notification under Section 17 of the Act, 1963 is published by dropping such an area proposed or recommended by the Forest Settlement Officer. It is also submitted that the present Forest Settlement Officer on the basis of the joint inspection and sketch submitted to this Court along with memo dated 29.10.2021 and on perusal of the records, stated that the proceedings under Sections 6 to 16 of the Act, 1963 has not been concluded and in this regard a letter has been written to the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Chitradurga on 23.09.2021 which is annexed at Annexure-R1.

¶49

We have considered the submissions and gone through the records.

¶50

We are of the considered view that it is for the concerned Competent Authority i.e., respondent No.3-The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District to take a decision with respect to issuance of No Objection Certificate and approval for resumption of mining activities by the petitioner which he shall do within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order is produced before him. We have passed the order without

¶51

¶52

entertaining the rival claims between the petitioners and

¶53

the respondents.

¶54