H G SUDHAKARA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 17855/2007 being aggrieved by the order dated 12-2-2009 wherein the learned single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no merit in the writ petition.

(2.) The appellant herein filed W.P. No. 17855/2007 being aggrieved by the order passed by the third respondent as per Annexure-G to the writ petition dated 23-7-2007 wherein the application of the petitioner for renewal of mining lease No. 439 granted for extraction of building stone in the land measuring 1 acre in Sy. No. 73 of Bidaragudu village, Thirthahalli taluk, Shimoga District has been rejected. It is averred in the writ petition that petitioner was an unemployed graduate who in the year 1997 had applied for quarrying lease in respect of building stone in Sy. No. 73 of Bidaragudu village, Thirthahalli Taluk, to an extent of one acre and Government of Karntaka granted quarrying lease bearing No. 439 dated 17-11- 1997 in favour of the petitioner for a period of five years. After obtaining quarrying lease, the petitioner obtained a provisional registration certificate as a small scale under the name and style of Sri. Ram Crusher and also produced registration certificate as a small scale unit under the name and style "Sri Rama Hallo Bricks Unit" and the petitioner made an application for renewal of the above said quarrying lease as per the condition of the lease within the stipulated time and the above said lease has been renewed by the third respondent for a period of five years and petitioner applied for renewal of the licence to the third respondent on 23-7-2007. Respondent No. 3 without application of mind and without following the procedure under the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules mechanically issued endorsement on the very same day i.e. 23-7-2007 stating that the area wherein the petitioner is seeking for renewal of quarrying lease is coming under gomal land and as per the circular dated 5-1-2007; 10-4-2007, no grant can be made and as such, the quarrying lease No. 439 of the petitioner cannot be renewed for a further period. It is further averred that in W.A. Nos.1353/2006 and 2813/2005 by order dated 18-11-2006, the Deputy Commissioners in the State were directed to identify all the gomal and other reserved lands to consider whether their extent have to be retained or reduced or totally diverted to other purposes based upon the cattle population and the requirement which was the reservation made still exists in the concerned areas. If any gomal land or other reserved lands is not required in the changed circumstances on account of subsequent events, de-reserve the same for consideration of regularisation under Section 94-A, 94-B and 94-C of the Land Revenue Act keeping in view of the eligibility of unauthorised occupants or regularisation of their occupation in the respective areas of the State. It is averred that leased area granted in favour of the petitioner is not a gomal land and the impugned order rejecting the renewal of application for renewal of lease on the ground that renewal of lease cannot be made on the gomal land is illegal and liable to be set aside.

(3.) Learned single Judge after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties by order dated 12-2-2009 held that renewal of lease cannot be granted in a gomal land and therefore, the impugned order is justified and that there was no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said order dismissing the writ petition dated 12-2-2009, writ petitioner has preferred this appeal. There is delay of 18 days in filing the appeal, and having regard to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, delay has been condoned by separate order.