G V SREERAMA REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this public interest litigation the petitioner, who is claiming to be a political worker dedicated himself to the cause of ameliorating the conditions of the poor and downtrodden and having worked among the students, youths and peasants during the relevant periods, has sought for quashing of the government order at Annexure-F dated 27-3-1997 by which the state government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 56 of the Karnataka minor mineral concession rules, (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules') had accorded working permission to the 4th respondent M/s. Gem granites for undertaking quarrying activities in an extent of 266 acres in sy. Nos. 293/1b1; and 296/1a of balakundi village, hungund taluk, bijapur district, for a period of two years or until the litigation is finally decided by the courts. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the first respondent to recover the loss caused by the 4th respondent to the government and to order for c. b. i. enquiry to find out the circumstances that led to pass the impugned order at Annexure-F and to take appropriate action against the concerned.

(2.) THE writ petition has been filed in the following background. The deputy commissioner, bijapur, in exercise of the powers conferred under sections 2, 4 and 7 of the Bombay personal inams abolition Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') has passed an order as per Annexure-A dated 5-8-1995 that the Provisions of Section 7 read with Section 4 of the act are applicable to un-assessed waste land in sy. No. 296/1 measuring 280 acres 26 guntas of balakundi village, hungund taluk, bijapur district. According to the deputy commissioner, the said land had vested with the government and therefore he has ordered to notify the name of the government in all the government records. Respondents 3 and 4 herein challenged the said order by filing writ petition nos. 32197 and 32198 of 1995 and connected petitions. the contention raised was that the 3rd respondent is the owner of the land in question and it leased the land in question in favour of 4th respondent. This court vide order at Annexure-B dated 27-6-1996 has disposed of those writ petitions by observing that it is for the party disputing vesting of the property in the government to establish the same before a competent civil court. The said order was challenged by respondents 3 and 4 before the apex court by filing special leave petition nos. 13884 and 13885 of 1996. On 30-7-1996 the apex court dismissed the special leave petitions vide order at Annexure-C confirming the order of this court. Thereafter, respondents 3 and 4 have filed suit in original suit No. 109 of 1996 on the file of the principal civil judge, bagalkot, seeking cancellation of the order of the deputy commissioner at annexure-a, for declaration of title in respect of the lands in question and for permanent injunction restraining the government and the deputy commissioner from interfering with the quarrying operations and transportation of granite. The said suit is stated to be pending.

(3.) PETITIONER contends that during the pendency of writ petition nos. 32197 and 32198 of 1995, by virtue of the interim order dated 1-9-1995 staying the operation of the order of the deputy commissioner at annexure-a, respondents 3 and 4 continued quarrying operations and transportation of granite blocks subject to payment of royalty and furnishing bank guarantee for the value of the quarried blocks. The said order came to be modified on 26-9-1995 permitting respondents 3 and 4 herein to furnish bank guarantee equal to 25% of the value of quarried blocks on f. o. b. rates. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent has furnished bank guarantee of Rs. 22. 50 crores and extracted and transported huge quantity of granite worth about Rs. 90. 00 crores. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after the disposal of special leave petitions also, respondents 1 and 2 have not realised the bank guarantee as also the balance f. o. b. value of granite blocks, thereby they have conspired with respondents 3 and 4 and in collusion with them, have cheated the state exchequer to the tune of Rs. 90. 00 crores. It is alleged that after dismissal of writ petition nos. 32197 and 32198 of 1995, respondents 1 and 2 seized 13000 cubic meters of granite blocks from the lands. According to the petitioner, the same were required to be sold in public auction but respondents 1 and 2, in collusion with the 4th respondent allowed to remove the same by collecting only royalty and without recovering f. o. b. value. The petitioner has estimated the loss to the tune of rs, 55 crores on account of this,