B HANUMANTHAPPA Vs. STATE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are directed against the order dated 26th November 2016 passed by the second respondent dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order of rejection of his application for quarrying lease and the order dated 6th January 2016 passed by the third respondent granting quarry lease in favour of the fourth respondent.

(2.) The petitioner has filed an application on 21st February 2012 for grant of quarrying lease in land measuring 3 acres in survey No.7 situated at Toranakambadahalli, Kolar Taluk and District. One Dr.R.Munireddy has filed an application for quarrying lease in respect of the very same land on 15th November 1996. The quarrying lease has been granted in favour of Dr.Munireddy in quarrying lease No.75 for a period of five years. The same has been renewed as per the quarrying lease No.898 for a period of ten years with effect from 15th November 2001. Thereafterwards, on 22nd September 2009 the said lease has been transferred to the name of M/s. Nagashree Stone Suppliers, that is, the fourth respondent herein. On 12th September 2011 fourth respondent filed an application for renewal of quarrying lease. The same has been renewed on 6th January 2016 for a period of ten years as applicable from 15th November 2011. Hence, the third respondent, by order dated 28th April 2015 has rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision before the second respondent. By order dated 26th November 2016, the revision has been dismissed on the ground that quarrying lease in respect of the very same land has been already granted in favour of Dr.R.Munireddy, one of the partners of the fourth respondent and the leased area is overlapping. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions.

(3.) Smt.P.V.Kalpana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Dr.R.Munireddy was a Government employee and he is not entitled for grant of quarrying lease in his favour. Secondly, she has contended that as on the date of petitioner's application for quarrying lease on 21st February 2012, there was no lease or licence existed on the said land in favour of the fourth respondent. Hence, she prays for allowing the petitions.