S.R. STONES CRUSHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Smt. Savithramma was granted a quarrying lease for building stones for a period of five years from 24th July, 2010. On the application made by said Smt. Savithramma, the lease was transferred in the name of the petitioner firm, of which, the said original lessee continued to be one of the partners. By virtue of the provisions of Rule 8A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the said Rules of 1994'), the lease was extended for a period of twenty years from the date of original grant.

(2.) Prior to transfer of lease in the name of the petitioner's firm, the original lessee Smt. Savithramma had lodged complaints on 23rd December 2013 and 20th February, 2015. The complaints were with a request to carry out joint measurement of the property subject matter of quarrying lease. There was another complaint on 20th February 2015 made by the said Smt. Savithramma to the Deputy Director-cum-Senior Geologist (Minerals), the Department of Mines and Geology. The complaint was against several un-known people alleging that they were unauthorizedly extracting minerals in the area subject matter of the lease granted to her. On 21st July, 2017, even the petitioner submitted an application to the 4th respondent, requesting him to conduct a survey and demarcation of the property subject matter of lease and certain amount was deposited for facilitating demarcation of the boundaries to the land subject matter of the lease. On 22nd September, 2018 the said Smt. Savithramma made one more complaint to the 4th respondent regarding illegal extraction of minerals by one Shri. Kenchappa.

(3.) According to case of the petitioner, the 4th respondent after investigation, caught hold of said Shri. Kenchappa who accepted that he had extracted building material to the extent of 1,00,000 Metric tons without prior permission of the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Reliance is placed on an undertaking allegedly signed by said Shri. Kenchappa in which, he stated that he had paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards royalty for having extracted quantity of 1,00,000/- Metric tons and that he further agreed to pay an amount of Rs.45,00,000/-. The petitioner is relying upon the notices issued by the respondents at Annexures-Q to Q5, demanding royalty for the years 2010-11 to 2015-16. According to the petitioner, the entire amount payable as per the said notices was paid and despite such payment, on 18th December 2018, a notice was served on the petitioner by the Senior Geologist alleging that the total accumulated quantity of minerals excavated from the date of grant of quarrying lease up to the date on which Drone survey was conducted was to the tune of 3,31,993 metric tons and as per the annual audit of the account up to the date of Drone survey, the petitioner had paid royalty on the quantity of only 56,668 Metric tons. The petitioner was called upon to submit a reply as to why the royalty on quantity of 2,88,465 Metric tons should not be recovered.