Dismissed

Sri D. Ramaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024WP/20150/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an authorization letter granting excavation rights to a private entity was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner lacked a subsisting right in the land and the authorized period for soil removal had expired, rendering the petition an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition praying to set aside the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 was dismissed. No costs were imposed.

Sri D. Ramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:37179-DB WP No. 20150 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶8

WRIT PETITION No. 20150 OF 2024 (GM-MMS)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI D. RAMAIAH, S/O. LATE YEMMEGALA DYAVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/OF: BEGUR VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 122.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI SEENAPPA K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, MULTI STORIED BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, ROOM No. 219, BEERASANDRA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:37179-DB WP No. 20150 of 2024

¶20

BEERASANDRA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶21

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, 1^ST FLOOR, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, DODDABALLAPUR, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶22

THE TECHNICAL OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, BEERASANDRA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶23

THE TAHSILDAR, HOSAKOTE TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, HOSAKOTE TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.

¶24

M/s. DILIP BUILDCON PVT. LTD., FLAT No. 5, GOVIND NARAYAN SINGH GATE, CHOUNA BHATTI, KOLAR ROAD, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH - 462 016. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. DILIP SURYAVANSHI.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA, FOR R1 TO R6)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, i.e., DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT, VIDE No.GA.BHO.EE/UU.NEE.KA/MURAM/NEYAMA-3A/2022-23, DATED 11/01/2023, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN SO FAR AS LAND IN SY.No.141, TO AN EXTENT OF 06 ACRES, SITUATED AT

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37179-DB WP No. 20150 of 2024

¶29

BEGUR VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶34

Heard learned advocate Mr. K. Seenappa for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar, who appeared upon service of copy of the petition in advance on behalf of the respondent-State and its authorities.

¶35

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dated 11.01.2023 passed by respondent No.2–the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Devanahalli Taluka, Bengaluru Rural District, which is in respect of Survey No.141, admeasuring 6 Acres land situated at Begur Village, Sulibele Hobli, Hosakote Taluka, Bengaluru Rural District.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:37179-DB WP No. 20150 of 2024

¶38

By the said order dated 11.01.2023, certain rights were granted for excavation of sand in favour of respondent No.7– M/s. Dilip Buildcon Private Limited. It is stated in the petition that the land in question was granted to the father of the petitioner one Sri Yemmegala Dyavappa on temporary basis for a period of three years which was by the order dated 26.05.1942.

¶39

3.1. Having considered the pleadings, the record of the petition

¶40

and the submissions made by both the sides, there are two good reasons for not entertaining the present petition. Firstly, the petitioner is not able to show that he has any subsisting right in respect of the land in question, the order which came to be passed giving the land to the petitioner was of the year 1942 which was valid for three years. It is the petitioner’s own case that thereafter the petitioner had made representation before the respondentauthorities to mutate the khata in respect of the said land in the revenue records in his favour. However, the same was not done and the representation remained pending.

¶41

3.1.1. The petitioner had an occasion to file Writ Petition No.8807 of 2021 in which also the only relief granted to the

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37179-DB WP No. 20150 of 2024

¶43

petitioner was to direct the respondent to consider the representation. While on one hand, the petitioner has not been able to make out any right in respect of the land in question to seek relief, there is a weightier reason why this petition deserves a ready dismissal.

¶44

3.2. Secondly, the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 is an authorization letter, whereby respondent No.7 is permitted to remove and use certain amount of soil for road works as per Rule 3-A of the Karnataka Sub-Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 as amended in the year 2016 and 2020. This permission is valid as per the expressed stipulation in the authorization letter, for a period of six months from the date of the order.

¶45

3.3. It is for the period of six months only that respondent No.7 was granted permission to obtain the soil and transport the submineral for use of National Highway Work. The authorization letter was dated 11.01.2023. The six months got over on 11.07.2023. Neither the petitioner has right to institute the petition nor any cause of action arises for the petitioner.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:37179-DB WP No. 20150 of 2024

¶48

4. The petition is thoroughly misconceived and amounts to abuse of process of law. The petition could have been dismissed

¶49

with cost, however, taking lenient view, cost is not imposed.

¶50

5. It is dismissed.

¶51

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶52

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶53

VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sri D. Ramaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D. Ramaiah v. the State of Karnataka

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

The Management of Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Lachmi Nandwani Vs Sri P Nanda Kumar

Zainab Fathima Vs State of Karnataka

Ms Siri Srikanth Vs Shri H S Prasanna

Smt Doddamma Vs Dr Ranganatha

M/S Hind Traders Vs State of Karnataka