(1.) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs.-
(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner has filed this Petition alleging that he is the absolute owner of the land mentioned in the schedule given at page 16 of the Writ Petition, describing the property in dispute as under:-
(3.) Land bearing Sy.No.83/7 of Then ganayakanahalli village, Sathanur Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, in the Bangalore District measuring 4 acres and bounded as below :- East by Land of Kamalingaiah; West by Land of K.Shivanna; North by Land of Veerabasavaiah; South by Lands of Gowramma & Kalalingegowda. Thus the petitioner has described the property in dispute by the survey number, area and very specifically by its description by boundaries. The petitioner has mentioned that he is the owner of this land. It is also alleged that in the revenue records the land is recorded in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he having got the right to excavate granite and other ordinary minerals as absolute owner thereof, as held by the Supreme Court and this Court in several Decisions, including the one given in W.P.No.4563 of 1987, the Government or the opposite parties or their employees, agents or servants have got no right to interfere with the petitioner's absolute right to excavate that. In this connection petitioner has referred to Section 38 of the Mysore Land Revenue Code. Section 70 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 has also been quoted. The petitioner's case is that to get rid of the Judgments of this Court, the State Government enacted Karnataka Land Revenue Amendment Act, 1993 (Act No.20 of 1993) and thereby amended Section 70 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the expression 'Save as otherwise expressly provided under' has been substituted therein for the words "Notwithstanding anything contained in". The petitioner's case is that the said amendment of 1993 is null, void and ultra vires.