Karnataka High Court
Smt Deepika D Hegde vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 August, 2021
Author: Chief Justice Govindaraj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.13175 OF 2021 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
SMT. DEEPIKA D HEGDE
W/O. SRI DINESH HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
RESIDING A/T JAYARATHNA HOME
MOLAHALLI POST
KUNDAPUR, UDUPI DISTRICT
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 576 222.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI I.THARANATH POOJARY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES
AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2
3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
DEPARTMENT OF MINES
AND GEOLOGY
RAJATHADRI MANIPALA
UDUPI - 576 104.
4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
KUNDAPURA DIVISION
KUNDAPURA - 576 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:
1) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO EFFECT DEEMED
EXTENSION OF THE PETITIONERS QUARRY LEASE QL DKD
252/2010 IN TERMS OF RULE 8-A(4) OF THE KMMC RULES,
CONSIDERING THE RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED
20/03/2015 MADE BY HER LATE MOTHER PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A.
2) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED
21/06/2016 MADE IN NO.K.S.A/DMN/VIVA/QUARRYLEASE/16-
17 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-B 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 grievance of the petitioner is that a case
for deemed extension under sub-rule (4) of Rule 8-A
of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules,
1994 (for short, "the said Rules of 1994") has not
been considered by the concerned respondents on
merits. There is no dispute that an application for
renewal of the quarrying lease was made by the
petitioner on 20th March, 2015. The lease has
expired on 25th June, 2015.
3. The prayer in the petition is for setting aside
the endorsement dated 21st June, 2016. The
endorsement has been issued by the Deputy
Conservator of Forests which proceeds on the footing
that the land subject matter of the lease is not a
reserve forest, but a larger area is included in the list
of deemed forest.
4. As far as the contention raised on the basis of
deemed forest is concerned, the issue is settled by
the judgment and order dated 12th June, 2019 in
W.P. No. 54476 of 2013 and connected matters. If
ultimately, it is found that the land subject mater of
the lease is a part of a forest or a forest land, as
observed in the aforesaid judgment dated 12th June,
2019, the petitioner before carrying on any non-
forest activity including quarrying operations, will
have to obtain the necessary consent under Section
2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
5. Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing
the following order:
ORDER
(i) We direct the respondents to consider the
prayer made by the petitioner for grant of deemed
extension of the quarrying lease at Annexure-C in
accordance with sub-rule (4) of Rule 8-A of the said
Rules of 1994;
(ii) In the light of the observations made
above, we direct that the prayer for grant of deemed
extension shall not be rejected on the basis of
Annexure-B dated 21st June, 2016;
(iii) An appropriate decision shall be taken on
the prayer made by the petitioner within one month
from today;
(iv) The petition is disposed of on the above
terms.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
vgh*
