BELGAUM MINERALS Vs. THE TAHASILDAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is Belgaum Minerals. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the farmers in respect of the various survey numbers situate in Belgundi Taluk, Belagavi District. The agreement came to be registered. The terms and conditions between the parties are that the petitioner is permitted to extract aluminum -laterite and ore for a period of 20 years. The lease agreement was the subject matter before the Director of Mines and Geology and lease was granted for a period from 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2021 with certain conditions. It is further submitted that as per the conditions stipulated in the lease agreement, a notification dated 18th October 2002 was issued to comply with all the conditions. On the basis of the same, mining lease was issued for a period of 20 years in No. 2431, a registered mining lease dated 29th April 2005. While the petitioner was carrying on mining operation, the respondent - first respondent Tahasildar and the officials of Department of Mines and Geology came to the spot, had drawn panchanama and seized the materials which were used for mining operations. The learned counsel submits that the impugned action of the respondents in seizing the materials by drawing panchanama dated 29.08.2015 is arbitrary and without authority of law and also the violation of the law that too without issuing any notice. The reasons assigned in the panchanama is contrary as the mineral was extracted as per licence when mining lease was granted wherein it shows that the land as barren land and is non -suitable for agricultural operations. The learned counsel for the petitioner also produced several phonographs to demonstrate that after the ore is extracted the land is not suitable for agricultural operations. In this circumstance, Section 95(1) of the Land Revenue Act is uncalled for. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the farmers were issued notice and the acknowledgment has also been produced before the Court and hence submits that the respondent has committed an error in taking the action.

(2.) THE learned Government Advocate submits to dismiss this petition on the ground that the farmers were issued notices and the same has not been responded to it. As per Section 95(1) of the Land Revenue Act, whenever the agricultural lands are sought to be converted for non -agricultural purpose, permission has to be obtained from the competent authority. The lands held by the farmers were agriculture land in which the petitioner was carrying on mining operations, which is impermissible under the provisions of MMRD Act and KMMC Rules, which is competent authority for issuance of mining lease. Unless, permission is sought and obtained under the provisions of Land Revenue Act for the use of agriculture land for non -agricultural purpose, the action of the petitioner in carrying out mining operations is arbitrary and is in violation of Section 95(1) of the Act.

(3.) AT this stage, the learned Government Advocate places reliance on the notice dated 22.01.2014 and pleaded that no doubt notice is sent to the address of the Director of the petitioner. He also produced the acknowledgement and there is also no refusal on behalf of the petitioner, since no such endorsement was produced. In this circumstance, it is just and proper to direct the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 2nd November 2015 without awaiting notice in this regard. Further, the Deputy Commissioner is also directed to consider as to whether the petitioner is permitted to carry on the mining operation as an interim measure.