V Devaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

7 . D MUNIRAJU S/O LATE DASAPPA NO.13/2, APARTMENT NO.F-1 1^ST FLOOR, OPP: POST OFFICE K.H.B. COLONY I STAGE 3^RD MAIN ROAD KAMAKSHI PALYA A.D. HALLI BANGALORE - 560 079

¶71

8 . D.M. TEJAS S/O D. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S T.J.K. ENTERPRISES REGD OFFICE AT NO.13/2 APARTMENT NO. F-1

¶72

7 -

¶73

1^ST FLOOR, OPP.: POST OFFICE K.H.B. COLONY I STAGE 3^RD MAIN ROAD KAMAKSHI PALYA, A.D. HALLI BANGALORE - 560 079

¶74

... RESPONDENTS

¶75

(SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 6 SRI BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.7 AND 8)

¶76

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 26^TH SEPTEMBER 2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT No.3, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES & GEOLOGY, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, VIDE ANNEXURE-J1 IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT No.8 AND THE NOTIFICATION DATED 26^TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT No.3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES & GEOLOGY, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-J2 IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT No.7 & ETC.

¶77

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

¶78

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

¶79

8 -

¶80

CAV JUDGMENT

¶81

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

¶82

Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.N. Ashwathnarayana with learned Advocate Mr. L. Narasimha Murthy for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate Mrs. Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.1 to 6-the State and its authorities, as well as learned advocate Mr. Bharath Kumar for respondent Nos.7 and 8.

¶83

The petitioners, forty in numbers, who assert themselves to be the residents of Mudagurki Village, Devanahalli Taluka, Bangalore Rural District and stated to have been engaged in agricultural activities at the village, further claiming to be owning the lands in the vicinity of Survey No.31 in the said village, have filed the present petition as public interest litigation.

¶84

The petitioners are aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondent authorities in granting lease for extracting building stone to private respondent Nos.7 and 8 who are the partners of one M/s. T.J.K. Enterprises. The said leases were granted in Survey No.31

¶85

of the village which is described as Gomal land by the petitioners. With such basic premise, the petitioners have prayed to set aside

¶86

9 -

¶87

Notification dated 26^th September 2018 issued by respondent No.3the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, in favour of respondent No.8 granting the lease. Also challenged is the similar Notification of even date issued in favour of respondent No.7.

¶88

3.1 The case of the petitioners as pleaded, by producing the map showing the location of Survey No.31 of the Mudagurki Village and the village tank in Survey No.27 as well as by showing the location of other surrounding lands is inter alia that the village is a small hillock known as Karagadammana Gudda and that it is classified as Gomal land. It is stated that in the said Karagadammana Gudda, their exist a temple structure where the villagers at Mudagurki and surrounding villagers come to worship the deity-Karagadamma.

¶89

3.2 It is a grievance that granting of quarry lease in favour of private respondents at the said place where the villagers conduct Yatra and perform Pooja of the deity is arbitrary. It is stated that the Bhoomi Pooja was conducted in the month of February 2019 for construction of temple and without verifying the facts, the said Survey No.31 is granted for lease-mining purposes. The case put forth is sought to be supported by producing various photographs of pooja activity at the place, the map etc. It was contended that not

¶90

10 -

¶91

only it is a devotional place, but the rainwater falls in the gomal lands of Survey No.31 and other survey numbers to get collected in the tank situated in Survey No.27.

¶92

3.3 It is the case that if the mining lease is permitted, it would hamper the collection of rainwater, in turn would adversely affect the drinking water supply to the villagers who drill their water-wells and further that the ground water would deplete to ultimately affect adversely the raising of various crops, such as mulberry, grapes and other agricultural produce.

¶93

3.4 The petitioners stated that in the notifications granting land for mining purpose to the private respondents, there is a condition incorporated that in the event of objection from the authority or general public, the lease will stand revoked without prior notice. It is the case that respondent Nos.7 and 8 have not obtained environmental clearance from the competent authority. It was stated that objections were raised through a local Member of Legislative Assembly and that the direct opposition was levelled to the grant of the land on lease basis to do the mining.

¶94

On behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3-State authorities, statement of objections-cum-reply was filed in which the case of the

¶95

11 -

¶96

petitioners was denied that Survey No.31 is a gomal land or that it is a hillock known as Karagadammana Gudda or that deity was shifted to Mudagurki Village from the temple or that bhoomi pooja was done for building a new building, etc. It was stated that before issuing the notifications granting the land for stone quarrying lease to the private respondents, spot inspection was carried out and certification was issued that there was no residential buildings or any structure within 200 mtrs. radius. It was contended that the notifications were properly issued.

¶97

4.1 It was stated that respondent No.8, in the capacity of Managing Partner of one M/s. T.J.K Enterprises had applied for grant of quarry lease to the extent of 7 Acres. However, the actual licence was restricted to 1 Acre and 6 Guntas. It was further stated that similar notification granting land to the extent of 2 Acres was issued in favour of private respondent No.7.

¶98

4.1.1 It was stated that in both the notifications of granting the licences, appropriate conditions are imposed. It was stated that earlier also the quarry lease permission was granted but, the said applicants did not comply with the conditions and the actual notifications were not therefore issued. The applicants then had

¶99

12 -

¶100

filed Writ Petition No.12833 of 2018 in which this Court directed the authorities to consider and decide the prayer of the applicantspetitioners, pursuant to which, upon compliance of all the conditions, the notifications are issued granting quarry lease to the said parties.

¶101

4.1.2 It was further stated that before issuing of notifications by the competent authority, a joint survey report was given by the team comprising of respondent No.3-Land Surveyor, the Assistant Director of Land Records and two other officers. In the report, it was clearly mentioned that any objection had not been received, and there was no prohibition in law to issue notification to grant the land to the private respondents.

¶102

4.2 Learned Additional Government Advocate filed memo dated 19.08.2024 along with which she had produced report of the Assistant Engineer and Geologists as well as Mahazars drawn on 29.01.2020 and on 07.02.2020 in presence of the petitioners with the officials concerned. A joint survey sketch prepared for the survey was also produced.

¶103

4.3 The private respondent Nos.7 and 8 in whose favour the portions of the land are granted out of Survey No.31, also filed their

¶104

13 -

¶105

statement of objections to give out the following facts and the details,

¶106

(i) The Government Notifications dated 26.08.2018 were issued in favour of respondent Nos.7 and 8 pursuant to their applications for grant of lease for building stone and in turn, quarry licences were executed and registered on 26.12.2018 in both the cases.

¶107

(ii) No objection certificates from the Tahasildar /Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, from the Department of Mines and Geology and from the Forest Department were given.

¶108

(iii) The controlling points were demarcated ascertaining the exact quarry area of 2 Acres and 1 Acre and 6 Guntas, respectively which was photographed and videographed.

¶109

(iv) Respondent Nos.7 and 8 faced resistance from the family members of the petitioners when they wanted to commence the quarry activities in their respective leases. Petitioner Nos.1, 2, 8 and 11 who are related to developers and also advocate, it was stated, ought to disturb the quarry holders.

¶110

(v) The area of 30 Acres and 22 Guntas in the said Survey No.31 was earmarked for public purpose including quarrying activities and

¶111

14 -

¶112

the land to the extent of 24 Acres and 22 Guntas was granted by the authorities in favour of different persons include respondent Nos.7 and 8.

¶113

(vi) The petitioners and their associates continued to object the persons of respondent Nos.7 and 8 who faced certain criminal activities and resistance. Police complaints were also registered.

¶114

(vii) Respondent Nos.7 and 8 had to institute Original Suit No.150 of 2019 and Original Suit No.152 of 2019 before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Devenahalli for permanent injunction against the defendants, whom included the petitioners herein. An application for temporary injunction was also filed in the said suit proceedings.

¶115

(viii) Against the non-grant of injunction by the civil court, Writ Petition Nos.25190 of 2019 and 25189 of 2019 were filed in which this Court granted restraint order requiring the respondents, whom included the petitioners herein, from interfering with the working in the leased area as per the lease deed.

¶116

(ix) Respondent No.7 had to file complaint before the Devanahalli police station against petitioner No.13 with the allegation that said petitioner has been indulging into illegal activities of using explosive

¶117

15 -

¶118

substance in the lease area. The details about the alleged illegal activities and the breach of the order of the court dated 2^nd July 1990 in Original Suit No.152 of 1990 was furnished to the police station.

¶119

(x) Petitioner No.1 was found to be involved in digging an illegal dry borewell and obtaining electricity facility unauthorisedly which has the effect of disrupting the boundaries of the lease area.

¶120

The case and the controversy as revealed from the rival pleadings go to show that private respondent Nos.7 and 8 came to be granted lease in Survey No.31 of the village. A joint survey was taken out by the authorities and the distance from the lake which exists in Survey No.27 of the said Mudagurki village was taken into account and it was ensured that the parameters and reputations are observed. Map was issued on 14^th February 2020 by the office of respondent No.6. At that time, the petitioners allegedly claimed their ownership on the ground that the area was overlapping and that the lease was illegally granted.

¶121

5.1 Copies of the lease deeds executed in favour of the private respondent Nos.7 and 8 for mining purpose are on record. There is nothing to show that in granting lease to the private respondents,

¶122

16 -

¶123

the authorities have breached any norms or have acted contrary to law. No supporting document is produced by the petitioners, nor such document is available to suggest that the grant of lease area was in “B kharab” land or that they were the agricultural lands as alleged.

¶124

5.2 It is to be noted that there is no absolute bar to spare the parcel of gomal lands for granting it for mineral excavation purpose if such land content has the mineral material to be extracted. Rule 8 of The Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules-1994 deals with the restrictions on grant or renewal of quarrying lease or licence. Proviso to sub-Rule 5 is relevant which mentions that in case of all minor minerals in gomal lands, the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue Department or Deputy Director or Senior Geologist concerned, who shall furnish joint inspection report through Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, it is not the position that the gomal land cannot be granted. The exercise of joint inspection report as contemplated in the Rule as above was undergone before granting quarry lease to respondent Nos. 7 and 8.

¶125

5.3 The case of the petitioners that there exists a deity or temple or that the people used to do pooja at the place or that bhoomi

¶126

17 -

¶127

pooja was done, are all a got-up case and has no factual, much less, the evidentiary foundation. Mere photographs are not sufficient, as they appeared to be artificially projective.

¶128

5.4 Not only that the facts alleged invariably suggest that the parties have personal enmity and that they have been harboring grievances against one another, the civil litigation as well as the writ petitions are pending, as mentioned above, between the parties. Order in Writ Petition No.25190 of 2019 dated 2^nd July 2019 figures on record wherein the lease deed is the subject matter and interim order is passed by this court.

¶129

5.5 In view of all these facts and circumstances standing in background, the public interest jurisdiction cannot be invoked.

¶130

5.6 It becomes a clinching aspect that the entire case of the petitioners that Survey No.31 of Mudagurki village cannot be disposed of for granting the lease, falls down for its merits when it is shown from the record that as many as 12 parties have been sanctioned leases for extraction of building stone quarry purpose in the said survey number by the competent authority.

¶131