IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.49332 OF 2016 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
SHRI P PUTTAPPA S/O P RUDRAPPA AGE:66 YEARS OCC. BUSINESS R/O 15TH WARD CHAPPARADALLI HOSPET:583201 (BY SRI. NANDISH PATIL, ADV.) AND ... PETITIONER THE STATE OF KARNATAKA OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT PARVAZ PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR, COLLEGE ROAD HOSPET-583201 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.25.7.2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEX-L AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING “B” GROUP THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
2. The application for renewal of quarrying lease made by the petitioner has been rejected by the Deputy Director by passing the impugned endorsement on the ground that as per the version of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bellary District, Bellary, the land falls within the forest land transferred to the Forest Department and therefore, the Forest Department has recommended not to consider the application for stone quarrying lease.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a copy of the recommendation of the Deputy Conservator of Forests was not supplied to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner could not deal with the same.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader supported the impugned order.
5. The perusal of the impugned order will show that apart from the fact that the contention of the appellant is that the report of the Deputy Conservator of Forest was not supplied to the petitioner, it appears that no competent authority has recorded a finding that the land, subject matter is a ‘forest’ or ‘forest land’ within the meaning of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act,1980 (for short “the said Act of 1980”). It is only on the basis of the recommendation of the Deputy Conservator of Forests that the application has been rejected. In fact, an enquiry was warranted before rejecting the application on the question whether the land subject matter of lease is a ‘forest’ or ‘forest land’ within the meaning of Section 2 of the said Act of 1980.
6. In this background, by setting aside the impugned order, the application for renewal of lease will have to be directed to be reconsidered.
7. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of by passing the following order:
a) The impugned order dated 25th July 2016 is hereby quashed and set aside;
b) The Deputy Director, Mines and Geology, Hospet is hereby directed to decide the application for renewal of lease made by the petitioner in the light of what is observed in this judgment and order;
c) The application shall be decided as expeditiously as possible in any event within a period of two months from today;
d) We make it clear that if the authority wants to rely upon any document, the copies thereof shall be furnished to the petitioner;
e) The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE DM