Disposed

Sri a J Shankar Prasad v. Ministry of Mining and Geology

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2022WP/4315/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought writs to prevent Forest Department interference with quarry lease possession and release a seized tractor. The Court noted prior order directed vehicle release. Court held no mandamus to prohibit lawful action.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition stands disposed after noting prior order for vehicle release and rejecting prayer for prohibition on lawful action.

Sri a J Shankar Prasad Vs Ministry of Mining and Geology — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 4315 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 4315 OF 2021 (GM-FOR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI A.J.SHANKAR PRASAD AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O A.R.JAYAPPA,

¶9

7/322, BEHIND VETERINARY HOSPITAL,

¶10

LAKSHMIPURA COLONY, ARASIKERE POST, HASSAN DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 573 103.

¶11

SRI IMRAN

¶12

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O KHALEEL, BHOOTHANAKADU VILLAGE, ALDURU HOBLI, CHIKKAMANGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. BINU M., ADVOCATE)

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

AND:

¶17

MINISTRY OF MINING AND GEOLOGY NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN, SOUTH BLOCK, SRI D.DEVARAJ URS ROAD, RACE COURSE ROAD,

¶18

¶19

WP No. 4315 of 2021

¶20

BENGALURU – 560 001

¶21

REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶22

DEPARTMENT OF FOREST BELUR, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201 REP. BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER.

¶23

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶24

REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY

¶25

VIDHANA SOUDA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI.B.V.KRISHNA, AGA)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONERS AT SY.NO.01 OF IDALLA KAVAL, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, MEASURING 1 ACRE 20 GUNTAS AND ETC.,

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer:

¶32

(a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2^nd respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties of the petitioners at Sy.No.01 of Idalla Kaval, Belur

¶33

¶34

WP No. 4315 of 2021

¶35

Taluk, Hassan District, measuring 1 Acre 20 Guntas;

¶36

(b) Issue any other writ or order directing the respondent No.2 to release the Vehicle (Tractor), bearing Registration No.KA18 N 7840, the same was seized vide PF.No.51347/19-20, dated 26-012020, by complying the order passed by the Hon’ble Civil Judge & JMFC at Belur in CCR.No.22/20, vide ANNEXURE ‘F’;

¶37

(c) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶38

Insofar as prayer (b) seeking a direction for release of the vehicle is concerned, this Court by an order dated 02.07.2021, directed the respondent to release the vehicle to the petitioner. The order reads as follow:

¶39

“Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶40

The petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the audacious behaviour of the respondent Forest Department in not releasing the vehicle in compliance with the order dated 03.02.2020 passed by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Belur in CCR. No.22/2020 in the case registered by the respondent Forest Department.

¶41

The facts are not in dispute. The petitioners plead that they are the beneficiaries of a quarrying lease granted by the State over an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas in Survey No.1 of Idalla Kaval, Belur Taluk, Hassan District and that pursuant to the execution of the quarrying lease deed, the first petitioner has been carrying on his quarrying activities since 06.05.2009.

¶42

¶43

WP No. 4315 of 2021

¶44

It is further contended that the land is a Government land and the same is evidenced by the report of the jurisdictional Tahasildar, Belur Taluk. In that view of the matter, it is contended that the action of the forest department is highhanded and smacks of arbitrariness.

¶45

On a query to the RFO, who is present before the Court, as to whether the forest department has raised any objection before quarrying lease application of the petitioner was recommended to the department of Mines and Geology? It is submitted that the objections have been raised and when called upon to produce the same, the officer is unable to place any material before the Court. On a further query, as to whether the forest department put the department of Mines and Geology on notice or the revenue authorities on notice regarding their claim that the land is a forest land? The query does not elicit any answer. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the prima-facie opinion that the action of the respondent appears to be high handed and arbitrary.

¶46

In that view of the matter, the respondent shall forthwith comply with the order of the jurisdictional Court and hand over the vehicle to the petitioner forthwith. Any delay would be viewed seriously.

¶47

List for reporting compliance on 06.07.2021.”

¶48

What remains is, prayer (a) that is to be considered. Prayer (a) is for a direction to respondent No.2 – Forest Department not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties of the petitioners.

¶49

¶50

WP No. 4315 of 2021

¶51

It is needless to observe that in the proceedings if

¶52

instituted against the petitioners or any interference made, will have to be in accordance with law. Therefore, no mandamus can be issued, prohibiting the respondents from taking any action in accordance with law.

¶53

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition

stands disposed.

Sd/JUDGE

NVJ

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Sri a J Shankar Prasad v. Ministry of Mining and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a J Shankar Prasad v. Ministry of Mining and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Ltd. Vs the Chief Engineer

Lily Realty Pvt. Ltd., Vs Yerasi Srilekha

Kareem Shariff Vs Office of the Sub Registrar and Marrige Registrar

M/S Ayur Park Health Care Ltd. Vs the Principal Secretary

Inayath Ulla Vs Regional Passport Officer

Sandeep H R Vs State of Karnataka