Smt. Jayalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR PASS ANY OTHER ORDERS, DIRECTION QUASHING/SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.2 DISMISSING HIS REVISION PETITION No.75/2022-23 (ANNEXURE-A) QUA HOLDING THAT THE MINIMUM AREA FOR QUARRYING LEASE IS TO BE 2 ACRES & ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

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

¶28

This writ petition advances two-fold prayers. First is to set

¶29

aside the order dated 25.01.2024 passed by respondent No.2-the Revisional Authority dismissing the Review Petition No.75 of 202223. The rejection of the revision was on the ground that the

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5497-DB WP No. 2343 of 2025

¶31

application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease did not satisfy the requirement that the minimum area applied for quarrying lease has to be 2 Acres. Consequential second prayer is made by the petitioner seeking direction against respondent No.2 to reconsider the revision application.

¶32

The application dated 28.03.2007 came to be filed by the petitioner for grant of quarry lease in respect of land Survey No.2, admeasuring 1 Acre at Devarahosuru Grama, Nagamangala Taluka, Mandya. The application of the petitioner came to be dismissed on 25.01.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision application which was dismissed.

¶33

The only ground which weighed with the Revisional Authority in dismissing the case of the petitioner was that the application of the petitioner for quarry lease was for less than 2 Acres of area. It was noted that the requirement in law was that 2 Acres of land ought to have applied for grant of quarry lease.

¶34

Assailing the impugned order of the Revisional Authority, it was submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the land in respect of which the quarry lease is applied, though its total area

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:5497-DB WP No. 2343 of 2025

¶37

is below 2 Acres falls within the cluster of land. It was submitted that when the land applied for quarry is a part of a cluster, Rule 15A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 would came into operation.

¶38

Rule 15A of the 1994 Rules deals with the minimum area for quarrying lease or licence or composite licence to be granted. In its sub-rule (1), provision is made that no quarry lease or license shall be granted with the extent less than the minimum extent prescribed in Schedule II-A for the concerned mineral. In the present case it is 2 Acres.

¶39

5.1 The Proviso to the said Rule 15A which reads as under,

¶40

"Provided that the State Government may, if it is satisfied on the basis of proposed production level, Geological or topographical conditions and for the reasons to be recorded in writing, grant a lease over an area less than minimum extent specified in Schedule II-A. However, the implementation of Environmental Management Plan in such cases shall be in cluster approach."

¶41

5.2 The Proviso contemplates that however the implementation

¶42

of the said requirement shall be in cluster approach which would mean that if the cluster of land has the extent beyond 2 Acres of

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5497-DB WP No. 2343 of 2025

¶44

area, the application would be entertained of a person who has applied for less than 2 Acres in the said area.

¶45

Learned advocate invited attention of the Court to the map which shows that the land applied for by the petitioner falls within the cluster area (Annexure-B, page 23).

¶46

6.1 While aforesaid is the prima facie position emerging, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar would submit that the said aspect was never pointed out to the Revisional Authority and had it been pointed out, it could have been considered in proper light and in accordance with law.

¶47

In the aforesaid view, the proper course would be to remand the proceedings to the Revisional Authority so that the Revisional Authority could apply its mind to the aforesaid aspect and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Resultantly, the petition is partially allowed by directing that the proceedings of the Revision Petition No.75 of 2022-23 shall be remitted back to the Revisional Authority-the Joint Director, Department of Mines and Geology, South Division, Mysuru.

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:5497-DB WP No. 2343 of 2025

¶50

7.1 The authority shall reconsider the revision and pass fresh order after giving opportunity to both the sides to raise all the contentions, including the above contention.

¶51

7.2 The contentions including the above contention shall be examined by the Revisional Authority in light of the facts on record and take appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law.

¶52

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case of the petitioner. The observations and statements made in this order shall not influence the decision of the Revisional Authority.

¶53

The exercise of deciding the revision shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order by the Revisional Authority.

¶54

While passing the fresh order the Revisional authority shall be entitled to consider all the relevant grounds which may be germane to the decision in granting or refusing the request of the quarry lease.

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:5497-DB WP No. 2343 of 2025

¶57

The petition is partly allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶58

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶59

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶60

AHB

Smt. Jayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr C B Purushothamma Vs Mr Umashankar

Mr Jagadisha Gatty Vs Mr Umashankar

Mr Navinaksha Vs Mr Umashankar

Smt M R Indreshree Vs Sri v H Mahesha

Smt G L Vedavathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.M. Rajendra Kumar Vs Shri Asad-Ur-Rehman Shariff