Renuka W/O Ramanagouda Goudar vs The Deputy Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 5485 Kant

                               1




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                            BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

          WRIT PETITION No.148509/2020 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN

RENUKA W/O RAMANAGOUDA GOUDAR
AGE 58 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O DYAMUNASI, TQ RON,
DIST GADAG-582101.                                 ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. C.S. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
   AND DISTRICT SAND MONITORING COMMITTEE,
   D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX,
   GADAG-582101.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
   SUB-DIVISION, GADAG-582101.

3. THE TAHASILDAR
   RON, TQ RON,
   DIST GADAG-582101.                             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 )

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 25.09.2020
PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN FORM NO. 37 (RULE 12) VIDE
ANNEXURE-J AND ORDER PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT IN FORM
NO.40 DATED 08.10.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-K.
                                    2




      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                                ORDER

A complaint was lodged against the petitioner under Section

200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for the offences

punishable under Rule 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation &

Development) Act, 1957 (for short, 'the MMRD Act') read with

Rule 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994

(for short, 'the Rules of 1994') and also under Rule 31 R(13) of

the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules,

2011 (for short, 'the Rules of 2011').

2. The jurisdictional Magistrate, after conducting an

enquiry, dismissed the complaint filed under Section 200 of

Cr.P.C. by judgment dated 11.11.2014 passed in C.C.

No.412/2013. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a

representation with the Deputy Director (Geologist), Mines and

Minerals Department, Gadag, stating that she has not carried out

any illegal mining activities on the land in question and that the

land in question is not in her possession, but is in possession of

the agreement holder. Thereafter, the Deputy Director

(Geologist), Gadag, issued a communication to the petitioner on

22.08.2017 stating that the petitioner has carried out illegal

mining activity in the lands belonging to her. Thereafter,

respondent No.3 has issued a notice dated 25.09.2020 calling

upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.46,20,000/- towards

arrears of land revenue. Being aggrieved by the said notice, the

petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the impugned notice issued by respondent No.3 calling upon the

petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.46,20,000/- towards arrears of land

revenue is in violation of principles of natural justice and also one

without authority of law.

4. On the other hand, learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that the

petitioner having carried out illegal mining activities in the land in

question, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned notice and as

such, the same does not warrant interference. She further submits

that the impugned notice issued by respondent No.3 is pursuant

to the order dated 13.06.2018 passed by the Karnataka

Lokayukta. Hence, she seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties.

6. Admittedly, a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.

was lodged against the petitioner for having carried illegal mining

activities which resulted in acquittal in the said case. The High

Court Government Pleader has produced a copy of the order dated

13.06.2018 passed by the Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru

wherein by exercising the power under Section 7(1)(b) & 9(3)(a)

of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, found it appropriate to initiate su-

motu proceedings to investigate the allegations made by the

aggrieved persons of Sudi Village, Gadag Taluk & District.

However, there is no adjudication with regard to the illegal mining

activity carried out by the petitioner as alleged by the

respondents. In the absences of final adjudication, respondent

No.3 has issued the notice for recovering the penalty as arrears of

land revenue by exercising powers under Section 73 of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act. However, the authorities concerned

have not held any enquiry under the provisions of the Karnataka

Land Revenue Act and also not adjudicated the complaint with

regard to unauthorised removing any minor mineral from the

government land. In the absence of any order holding that the

petitioner has unauthorisedly removed any mineral from the

government land, the impugned notice issued by respondent No.3

is one without authority of law.

7. In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the view

that the impugned notice issued by respondent No.3 is in violation

of principles of natural justice and one without authority of law.

Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.09.2020 issued by respondent No.3 at Annexure-J and the Form No.40 dated 08.10.2020 issued by respondent No.3 at Annexure-K are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Kms