Karnataka High Court
Mr K M Hombegowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:2848-DB
WP No. 35199 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO. 35199 OF 2024 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. K.M. HOMBEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIMARAIAH
RESIDENT OF KURUBARA PALYA
CHUNCHAGATTA POST
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU-562 130.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by H
K HEMA
Location:
High Court 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
of Karnataka
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
(MSME AND MINES)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES
VIKAS SOUDHA, 1ST FLOOR
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:2848-DB
WP No. 35199 of 2024
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
13TH FLOOR, V.V. CENTRE
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER, OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER NO.GABHUI/HIBHUVI/BENAJI/KAGAGU/:838/2024-25/
4517, DATED 04/07.12.2024 (ANNEXURE-A), WHICH
SUSPENDS THE QUARRY OPERATION OF QL.No.838 OF THE
PETITIONER, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:2848-DB
WP No. 35199 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. S.S.Mahendra for the petitioner
and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar
for the respondent-State and its authorities who appeared to assist
the Court upon service of a copy of the petition in advance.
2. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to call in question the
order dated 04/07.12.2024 passed by the Senior Geologist,
Department of Mines and Geology, Bengaluru Urban District,
whereby the quarrying operations undertaken by the petitioner in
quarry lease Nos.836, 837 and 838 at Huluvenahalli village,
Bengaluru South Taluka, are ordered to be suspended.
3. The aforesaid order was preceded by certain facts and events
relevant to be noted. It appears that a complaint was filed by one
Mr. Harish.N to state that the petitioner has been carrying out
illegal stone quarrying operations in the agricultural land bearing
Survey No.29/P1, P2, P3 situated at Huluvenahalli village, which
are the lands adjacent to the quarry lease area of the petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC:2848-DB
3.1 The said complaint dated 28.05.2024 figures on record,
[Annexure-J at page No.80], in which it is stated that the petitioner
and his business partners have illegally included the agricultural
lands allotted to Dalit families into their mining activities and they
have been carrying out unauthorised stone quarrying. The
quarrying land and the adjoining lands are utilized for mining
purpose, it was stated in the complaint in such a way that it left no
identifiable mark on the original land. It was stated that large pits
have been dug unlawfully.
3.2 It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, the
Assistant Director of Land Records, Bengaluru South, fixed a date
for inspection of the site along with the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South
Taluka. The inspection was carried out on 30.08.2024. The
Technical Officers of the Department of Mines and Geology carried
out the inspection of the site and submitted a report dated
15.10.2024. The inspection was carried out in the presence of the
complainant and the lease holder. It was stated that stone
quarrying was carried out in the area since years and deep pits
were found.
NC: 2025:KHC:2848-DB
3.3 It was further stated that the Tahsildar had confirmed the
report submitted by the Revenue Inspector. In the report of the
Revenue Inspector, Huluvenahalli village, it was stated that the
land in Survey No.29 was basically a government gomal land which
was sanctioned by the Government in favour of one Siddaiah, son
of Muttiah. It was stated that in the said land, the petitioner, son of
late Munimaraiha and his partners have been illegally quarrying
stone including the agricultural land granted to dalits along with the
quarry lease granted by the Government. It was stated that the
quarry lease area was found to be currently mined and had deep
trenches.
3.4 In light of the above prima facie facts noticed by the
authorities, it was decided to request the technical staff of the
Department of Mines and Geology to carry out the drone or satellite
survey to ascertain whether the quarrying operations and the lease
area overlapped and the lease is extended beyond the sanctioned
area. The order mentioned that the officials of the Revenue
Department and the Department of Mines and Geology will be
conducting a drone survey of the area to check the facts and report
about the overlapping of the sanctioned area will be made
NC: 2025:KHC:2848-DB
available. It is pending this exercise that the suspension of
quarrying operations is ordered in light of the first hand facts
noticed.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner firstly submitted that there
is no Phodi and Durast undertaken and therefore, it is not possible
to conclude that the petitioner has extended quarrying operations
and that the areas are overlapped. Secondly, the decision of this
Court in Sri D.Shankar vs. State of Karnataka which was Writ
Petition No.49880 of 2019 decided on 07.11.2019, was relied with
reference to the provisions of Section 8-K of the Karnataka Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. The said provision deals with the
aspect that the quarrying operations shall be in accordance with
the quarrying plan/simplified quarrying plan. From paragraph 8 of
the said order, it was sought to be highlighted that the Court has
observed that the suspension of the quarrying operations cannot
be acted upon except on the grounds provided in sub-rule (2) of
Rule 8-K of the said Rules and that no such ground exists.
5. The Court has considered the aforesaid two submissions.
Rule 8-K of the Rules in terms provided that the quarrying
operations would be required to be carried out in accordance with
NC: 2025:KHC:2848-DB
the quarrying plan/simplified quarrying plan as approved by the
authorities. The facts highlighted above and also noted by the
Competent Authority while passing the order of suspension of the
quarrying operations is based on the prima facie conclusion that
the quarrying operations are carried out by not adhering to the
sanctioned plan and that they are extended to the agricultural
lands.
5.1 The Court hastens to add that this is only a tentative
conclusion raised by the authorities. The authorities are in the
process of finally verifying the said factual aspect. It is for the very
purpose the drone survey by the technical team of the Revenue
Department and the Department of Mines and Geology is going to
be deputed and the drone survey will be conducted.
5.2 It is to be observed that the final conclusion and the final
action which may be required will be only after such exercise is
completed. The Court is of the view after the drone survey exercise
is completed, the petitioner shall also be given an opportunity of
hearing and put forward its stand.
NC: 2025:KHC:2848-DB
6. In light of the above facts and aspects emerging, the following
directions are issued,
(i) As contemplated in the impugned order, the
drone survey shall be conducted by the authorities
within fifteen days from today.
(ii) The report of the drone survey shall be made
available to the petitioner within a week thereafter.
(iii) If the report has any adverse finding against
the petitioner, the petitioner shall be given an
opportunity of hearing.
(iv) The petitioner has right to file a reply to the
drone survey report and put forward his defence.
(v) The authorities shall take a final decision by
considering all the above materials within two
further weeks from the date of such reply which
may be filed by the petitioner.
(vi) This Court has not gone into merits on any
aspect and any observations in this order will not
NC: 2025:KHC:2848-DB
influence the decision which is to be taken by the
authority on the basis of the material to be made
available upon the drone survey and after hearing
the petitioner.
(vii) Before taking the final decision, the
complainant may also be heard along with the
petitioner by the authorities at their discretion.
6.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner fairly stated that the
petitioner will bear the drone expenses.
7. The petition is disposed of in the terms as above.
SD/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
hkh.
