D. SHAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:

(2.) The facts in a nutshell leading to the present petition are that pursuant to the notification dtd. 9/1/2012 calling for applications for grant of quarry lease in respect of 2 acres (previous quarry lease No.422) and 6 acres 20 guntas (previous quarry lease No.25), both situated in Sy.No.29 of Huluvenahalli village, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District. The petitioner made an application dtd. 8/2/2012 for mining building stones a non specified minor mineral over the area measuring 6 acres 20 guntas of Sy. No 29. It is pertinent to state that the said area applied for by the petitioner was previously leased to respondent No.6 and since the lease had expired, the said area was made available for grant. The present dispute pertains to the extent of said 6 acres 20 guntas situated at Sy. No.29 Huluvenahalli village [subject property].

(3.) Respondent No.5 (Senior Geologist) had demanded a sum of Rs.53,26,180.00 from respondent No.6 towards arrears due and also held that respondent No.6 held an excess of 25 acres contrary to Rule 25 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as KMMC Rules, 1994). Being aggrieved by the said demand, respondent No.6 preferred Writ Petition No.44397/2011 [GM-MM-S]. The said writ petition was disposed of by a coordinate bench of this court vide its order dtd. 25/7/2012. In the course of the said proceedings, respondent No.6 renounced his interest in all other leases held by him and pursued the leases in respect of quarry lease Nos.25 and 422. Accordingly, this Court directed that the application of respondent No.6 for grant of quarry leases in respect of the said areas be considered on its merits.