Mr K M Hombegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.GABHUI/HIBHUVI/BENAJI/KAGAGU/:838/2024-25/ 4517, DATED 04/07.12.2024 (ANNEXURE-A), WHICH SUSPENDS THE QUARRY OPERATION OF QL.No.838 OF THE PETITIONER, ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2848-DB WP No. 35199 of 2024

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

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

¶28

Heard learned advocate Mr. S.S.Mahendra for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for the respondent-State and its authorities who appeared to assist the Court upon service of a copy of the petition in advance.

¶29

By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to call in question the order dated 04/07.12.2024 passed by the Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, Bengaluru Urban District, whereby the quarrying operations undertaken by the petitioner in quarry lease Nos.836, 837 and 838 at Huluvenahalli village, Bengaluru South Taluka, are ordered to be suspended.

¶30

The aforesaid order was preceded by certain facts and events relevant to be noted. It appears that a complaint was filed by one Mr. Harish.N to state that the petitioner has been carrying out illegal stone quarrying operations in the agricultural land bearing Survey No.29/P1, P2, P3 situated at Huluvenahalli village, which are the lands adjacent to the quarry lease area of the petitioner.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2848-DB WP No. 35199 of 2024

¶32

3.1 The said complaint dated 28.05.2024 figures on record, [Annexure-J at page No.80], in which it is stated that the petitioner and his business partners have illegally included the agricultural lands allotted to Dalit families into their mining activities and they have been carrying out unauthorised stone quarrying. The quarrying land and the adjoining lands are utilized for mining purpose, it was stated in the complaint in such a way that it left no identifiable mark on the original land. It was stated that large pits have been dug unlawfully.

¶33

3.2 It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, the Assistant Director of Land Records, Bengaluru South, fixed a date for inspection of the site along with the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluka. The inspection was carried out on 30.08.2024. The Technical Officers of the Department of Mines and Geology carried out the inspection of the site and submitted a report dated 15.10.2024. The inspection was carried out in the presence of the complainant and the lease holder. It was stated that stone quarrying was carried out in the area since years and deep pits were found.

¶34

5 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:2848-DB WP No. 35199 of 2024

¶36

3.3 It was further stated that the Tahsildar had confirmed the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector. In the report of the Revenue Inspector, Huluvenahalli village, it was stated that the land in Survey No.29 was basically a government gomal land which was sanctioned by the Government in favour of one Siddaiah, son of Muttiah. It was stated that in the said land, the petitioner, son of late Munimaraiha and his partners have been illegally quarrying stone including the agricultural land granted to dalits along with the quarry lease granted by the Government. It was stated that the quarry lease area was found to be currently mined and had deep trenches.

¶37

3.4 In light of the above prima facie facts noticed by the authorities, it was decided to request the technical staff of the Department of Mines and Geology to carry out the drone or satellite survey to ascertain whether the quarrying operations and the lease area overlapped and the lease is extended beyond the sanctioned area. The order mentioned that the officials of the Revenue Department and the Department of Mines and Geology will be conducting a drone survey of the area to check the facts and report about the overlapping of the sanctioned area will be made

¶38

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2848-DB WP No. 35199 of 2024

¶39

available. It is pending this exercise that the suspension of quarrying operations is ordered in light of the first hand facts noticed.

¶40

Learned advocate for the petitioner firstly submitted that there is no Phodi and Durast undertaken and therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the petitioner has extended quarrying operations and that the areas are overlapped. Secondly, the decision of this

¶41

Court in Sri D.Shankar vs. State of Karnataka which was Writ Petition No.49880 of 2019 decided on 07.11.2019, was relied with reference to the provisions of Section 8-K of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. The said provision deals with the aspect that the quarrying operations shall be in accordance with the quarrying plan/simplified quarrying plan. From paragraph 8 of the said order, it was sought to be highlighted that the Court has observed that the suspension of the quarrying operations cannot be acted upon except on the grounds provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 8-K of the said Rules and that no such ground exists.

¶42

The Court has considered the aforesaid two submissions. Rule 8-K of the Rules in terms provided that the quarrying operations would be required to be carried out in accordance with

¶43

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2848-DB WP No. 35199 of 2024

¶44

the quarrying plan/simplified quarrying plan as approved by the authorities. The facts highlighted above and also noted by the Competent Authority while passing the order of suspension of the quarrying operations is based on the prima facie conclusion that the quarrying operations are carried out by not adhering to the sanctioned plan and that they are extended to the agricultural lands.

¶45

5.1 The Court hastens to add that this is only a tentative conclusion raised by the authorities. The authorities are in the process of finally verifying the said factual aspect. It is for the very purpose the drone survey by the technical team of the Revenue Department and the Department of Mines and Geology is going to be deputed and the drone survey will be conducted.

¶46

5.2 It is to be observed that the final conclusion and the final

¶47

action which may be required will be only after such exercise is completed. The Court is of the view after the drone survey exercise is completed, the petitioner shall also be given an opportunity of hearing and put forward its stand.

¶48

8 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:2848-DB WP No. 35199 of 2024

¶50

In light of the above facts and aspects emerging, the following directions are issued,

¶51

(i) As contemplated in the impugned order, the drone survey shall be conducted by the authorities within fifteen days from today.

¶52

(ii) The report of the drone survey shall be made available to the petitioner within a week thereafter.

¶53

(iii) If the report has any adverse finding against the petitioner, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing.

¶54

(iv) The petitioner has right to file a reply to the drone survey report and put forward his defence.

¶55

(v) The authorities shall take a final decision by considering all the above materials within two further weeks from the date of such reply which may be filed by the petitioner.

¶56

(vi) This Court has not gone into merits on any aspect and any observations in this order will not

¶57

9 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:2848-DB WP No. 35199 of 2024

¶59

influence the decision which is to be taken by the authority on the basis of the material to be made available upon the drone survey and after hearing the petitioner.

¶60

(vii) Before taking the final decision, the complainant may also be heard along with the petitioner by the authorities at their discretion.

¶61