IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO.32727 OF 2019 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
SRI SHRIDHAR SHETTY AGED 57 YEARS S/O SHYAMA SHETTY RESIDING AT NEW BASRI HOUSE KUKKUNDUR POST KARKALA TALUK-576117 (BY SHRI P.P.HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, 5TH FLOOR BENGALURU-01 2. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY RAJATHADRI MANIPAL, UDUPI-576104 3. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS KUNDAPURA DIVISION KUNDAPURA UDUPI DISTRICT-576201 ... PETITIONER 4. THE TAHSILDAR KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-574104 5. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KUKKUNDUR VILLAGE PANCHAYATH KUKKUNDUR KARKALA TALUK-576117 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) ---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 17.12.2016 PASSED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, UDUPI/R-2 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. A stone quarrying lease was granted to the petitioner on 22nd September 2011 for a period of five years. Within the time provided by law, an application for renewal of lease was filed on 24th May 2016, which is rejected by the impugned endorsement dated 17th December 2016.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that by the impugned endorsement, the application for renewal has been rejected on an incorrect assumption that the land subject matter of quarrying lease is a deemed forest. He submitted that apart from the fact that while granting the quarrying lease, this contention was not raised, by the order dated 8th June 2016, the quarrying lease was extended upto 8th June 2017.
5. The learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the petition firstly on the ground of delay. Secondly, he submitted that as the subject land is a deemed forest, the quarrying lease cannot be renewed.
6. We have considered the submission.
7. As far as the delay is concerned, apart from the fact that the issue is covered by a decision of this Court dated 12th June 2019 in W.P.No.54476/2016 and connected matters, it appears that on the basis of pendency of the application for renewal, the stone quarrying lease was extended from 9th June 2016 to 8th June 2017.
8. In any event, the application for renewal could not have been rejected only on the ground that the subject land is a deemed forest. There was no enquiry made whether the subject land is a forest or a forest land to which Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 will be applicable. Therefore, the issue is governed by the aforesaid judgment of this Court dated 12th June 2019.
9. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
(i) The impugned endorsement dated 17th December 2016 is hereby quashed and set aside;
(ii) The application made by the petitioner for renewal of quarrying lease shall be considered and decided a fresh in the light of the judgment and order dated 12th June 2019 (Annexure-F to the petition);
(iii) A fresh order shall be passed on the application within a period of three months from today;
(iv) The petition is disposed of on the above terms.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB