K. RAMESH S/O A.H. KRISHNAPPA Vs. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (PLANS), MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KARNATAKA COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT AND M. SUBBANNA S/O LATE PATEL MADAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 10804/2008 being aggrieved by the order dated 9.2.2009 wherein the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition.

(2.) THE appellant herein tiled W.P. No. 10804/2008 seeking for declaration that the sketch appended to the notification dated 28.4.2008 in so far as it permits quarrying lease for a period of 20 years over an area of 7 acres of land in Sy. No. 124 of Haliyar village, Kollegal taluk, Chamarajanagar district, where there is no black dyke for quarrying, is illegal and quash the same.

(3.) LEARNED Single Judge, after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, impleading applicant by order dated 9.2.2009, held that the declaration sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted as the area had been surveyed and the order granting renewal of lease and the petitioner has undertaken mining operation in the said area cannot now contend that he is entitled to declaration that the area appended to the lease deed and the renewal of lease is not correct and the petitioner must be permitted to carry on quarrying operation in the area, in which he was carrying on quarrying work. Even though, it is not included in the area appended to the lease deed and the renewal of lease and permitting the petitioner to carry on quarrying operation and the area as shown in the lease deed and renewal of lease would amount to premium conferred upon a person, who has no respect for law and has quarried outside the leased area and therefore it is impermissible to grant reliefs and in a writ petition, the sketch appended to the lease deed cannot be quashed having regard to the material on record and it is not a case of rectifying a mistake as sought to be made out in the writ petition. Accordingly, rejected the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the writ petition by order dated 9.2.2009, the petitioner has preferred this appeal.