Meghal D/O Jyotin Gandhi Vs Deputy Commissioner

MS. PAYAL D/O. JYOTIN GANDHI AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. VISHWESHWAR NAGAR, HUBLI-580032, DIST: DHARWAD, BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI. SHARANAPPA ADIVEPPA BADAWADAGI, AGE: 70 YEARS, R/O. PADMARAJ NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580031.

¶13

M/S. BHARAT TIMBER AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, BY ITS PARTNER JYOTIN C.GANDHI, REP. BY ITS REGD. GPA HOLDER, SHRI. SHARANAPPA ADIVEPPA BADAWADAGI, AGE: 70 YEARS, R/O. PADMARAJNAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580031.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. V.M.SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC-D:200 WP No. 107776 of 2014

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX, HUBLI-HOSPET ROAD, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶21

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOPPAL SUB-DIVISION, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶22

THE TAHASILDAR KUSHTAGI TALUKA, KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER NO./11/2013-14 DATED 24.07.2014 PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:200 WP No. 107776 of 2014

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioners have approached this Court assailing the Order dated 24.07.2014 passed by respondent No.3, whereby a penalty was imposed alleging illegal extraction and transportation of granite from the land bearing R.Sy.Nos.54/1 and 54/2 of Antharathana village, Kushtagi Taluk, Koppal District.

¶32

2. Brief facts:

¶33

Petitioners No.1 and 2 claim to be the absolute owners

¶34

of the land as R.Sy.No.54/1 measuring 1 Acre and as R.Sy.No.54/2 measuring 1 Acre 20 Guntas respectively situated at Antharathana village, Kushtagi Taluk, Koppal District. The lands were duly converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes for granite quarrying. The petitioners No.1 and 2 had issued consent letters in favour of petitioner No.3-M/s Bharat Timber and Construction Company, to enable it to obtain quarry licences under Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC-D:200 WP No. 107776 of 2014

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

‘the Rules, 1994). Pursuant thereto, a valid quarrying licence was granted in respect of R.Sy.No.54/1 and quarry operations were carried out in accordance with law with due payment of royalty supported by Mineral Dispatch Permits issued by the Department of Mines and Genealogy.

¶39

It is the specific case of the petitioners that no quarry of activity was carried out in R.Sy.No.54/2, as the application for grant of licence in respect of the said land was still pending. Despite the same, respondent No.3 passed impugned order dated 24.07.2014 imposing a penalty without issuing notice or conducting any enquiry.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the granite being a minor mineral, the field is fully occupied by the Rules, 1994 and respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, to levy penalty. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed without issuance of notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing, rendering it violative

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:200 WP No. 107776 of 2014

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

of principles of natural justice. It is specifically contended

¶44

that quarrying operations were lawfully carried out only in R.Sy.No.54/1 under a valid licence with payment of royalty, and no quarrying activity was carried out in R.Sy.No.54/2 and that the impugned order is arbitrary, unsupported by material and liable to be quashed.

¶45

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶46

appearing for the respondents/State justifies the order of the Tahsildar and submits that the same does not warrant any interference.

¶47

This Court has carefully considered the

¶48

contentions urged and perused the material on record.

¶49

On perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 24.07.2014 has been passed without issuing notice to the petitioners and without conducting any enquiry and such the action is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC-D:200 WP No. 107776 of 2014

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is unsustainable warrant interference, and since the matter requires factual verification in accordance with law, the ends

¶54

of justice would be met by remitting the matter to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration in accordance with law after due opportunity to the petitioners, including the exercise of the power by respondent No.3.

¶55