Karnataka High Court
Mr. Mohammed Afzal vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 March, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Ashok S.Kinagi
-1-
WP No. 22283 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 22283 OF 2022 (GM-MMS)
BETWEEN:
MR. MOHAMMED AFZAL
SON OF LATE MOHAMMED AMEER
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.11, SECOND CROSS
M G ROAD, UDAYAGIRI
MYSURU-570019
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LAKAMAPURMATH CHIDANANDAYYA., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by R DEEPA AND:
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE
S.S.I. TEXTILES AND MINES
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
-2-
WP No. 22283 of 2022
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
FOR THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
ARANYA BHAVAN
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560055.
4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
MANDYA SUB DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA-571401.
5. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
THE DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560001.
6. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
THE DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
AND THE MEMBER SECRETARY
VIDYA NAGAR, FIRST CROSS
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA-571401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS WHICH ULTIMATELY
RESULTED IN ISSUING THE COMMUNICATION IMPUGNED
DATED 25.08.2021 BEARING No.C1/Bhumi/J.C
MEETING/Sa/1/2017-18 AT ANNEXURE-A INFORMING THAT
THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY APPLIED BY THE PETITIONER IS A
DEEMED FOREST; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 22283 of 2022
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to
the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.14466/2022 dated 28.07.2022. The copy of the said
order is placed on record at page No.178.
2. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petition is similarly circumstantial, and as
this Court found, the communication, though it was between
two officers, namely, the Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Mandya Division, Mandya, to the Licensing Authority, namely,
the Deputy Commissioner. The communication is in violation of
the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court, vide order
dated 12.06.2019 passed in W.P.No.54476/2016 c/w
W.P.No.51135/2016 in the case of DHANANJAY VS. STATE
OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, the communication cannot be
sustained. Accordingly, the petition was partly allowed.
3. The communication in the present matter is at
Annexure-A. As the communication runs on the same line as it
was in W.P.No.14466/2022. We see no reason to take a
WP No. 22283 of 2022
different view than the view adopted by the Division Bench in
W.P.No.14466/2022 dated 28.07.2022. Accordingly, the
petition is allowed and the communication at Annexure-A dated
25.08.2021 is quashed and set aside.
4. We further direct the concerned competent
authority to consider the application made by the petitioner for
grant of quarrying lease afresh in the light of the judgment of
this Court in the case of DHANANJAY (SUPRA) and take
appropriate decision within a period of two months from the
date a copy of the order is produced before the competent
Authority.
5. We further make it clear that while considering the
application afresh, the concerned Authority will have to
consider whether the subject land is "Forest" or "Forest Land"
as laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of T.N.GODAVARMAN THIRUMULKPAD VS. UNION OF INDIA
AND OTHERS.
WP No. 22283 of 2022
6. It is needless to further observe that if the
concerned Authority finds that the land is a "Forest" or "Forest
Land", lease or extension of lease cannot be granted unless the
consent of the Central Government is obtained as per Section 2
of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The decision so taken
shall be communicated to the petitioner.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SSB
