NANJANAYAKA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common prayer in these series is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to forbear respondents from interfering with their right to excavate, remove and transport granite found in his/their patta land/s.

(2.) Most of the petitioners are from old State of Mysore and a few from Kollegal, which on re-organisation has become part and parcel of Mysore District. They trace their right to excavate granite either to proviso to Section 38 of Mysore Land Revenue Code and notification issued thereunder or the Madras Board Standing Order, In support of their prayer, reliance is placed on catena of decisions of this Court to which a reference would be made a little later.

(3.) Respondents in their statement of objections dispute their right to extract mnior minerals except in accordance with the Rules framed under Section 15 of the 'Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Specific reference is made to Chapter II of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the'Rules') and Rules 3 and 3A which prohibit quarrying of black granite or pink granite, except in accordance with the licence issued under the Rules. In view of the statutory provisions petitioners have no right to quarry either black granite or pink granite in areas coming under Kollegal, Kanakaputa, Tumkur, Bellary, Bijapur and other places save as otherwise provided in these rules. ouarrying of black or pink granite by private persons is prohibited under law, hence, not entitled to the relief. Referring to provisions contained in the Land Reforms Act, it is contended that even the tenant in whose favour occupancy right is conferred is also not entitled ipso-facto to excavate granite except in accordance with the Rules. Respondents contend that neither the provisions of the Mysore Land Revenue Code or Karnataka Land Revenue Act nor the Madras Board Standing Order is of any assistance. The so called notification on which a reliance Is placed has not exempted excavation of precious stones like black and pink granites and in the absence of any notification, they have no right to excavate those minor minerals. Referring to the decision in M. Veera Madhu v Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, Mysore (Writ Petition No. 4563 of 1987 DD: 14th July 1987) it is contended that this Court has proceeded on the premise that there was no material to establish quarrying of black granite and pink granite or other precious stones were not exempted under proviso to Section 38 of the Land Revenue Code unless there is a declaration as contemplated under Rule 2(g) of the Rules no quarrying operation can be carried on. In the absence of any declaration by the Controlling Officer, they have no right to quarry. Their right to quarry black or pink granite or precious stones is not saved under any provisions of law or any instrument. Provisions contained in Chapter III or Chapter V of the Rules providing for quarry by private persons will not automatically confer right to quarry. There is no material to establish that rights of petitioners in or over these precious materials have been granted to them. Relying on the notification, dated 1st August 1987, propuced as Annexure-R1 contend that the Director of Mines and Geology in the State of Karnataka has specified black, pink and grey granites as minor minerals for the purpose of clause (k) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2of the Rules, as such, these minerals can be exploited only by the State Government or by any Corporation wholly owned by the State Government. Supreme Court, in State of Karnataka and another v Prasad Granites (Civil Appeal No. 3130 of 1985) while upholding the validity of Rule 3A of the Rules has held that the Rules prohibit grant or renewal of leases for quarrying black granite in favour of private persons. Apart from the provisions relating to the minor minerals specified in the Act and the Rules, the quarrying operations attract the provisions of Explosives Act and in violation of the provisions of the Explosives Act, many petitioners have indulged in unauthorised quarrying. Without securing permission under the Explosives Act, they are not entitled to quarry. Apart from this, the quarrying operations affect various other laws relating to Environment and Ecology. Therefore, there is no right in petitioners to win minerals whatever may be the position or circumstances and there is no statutory obligation on these Authorities to grant lease in contravention of Rules relating to Mines Act and other mandatory provisions contemplated under the Explosives Act; Law relating to Environment and Ecology, Pollution Control Act, Forest Preservation Act, Wild Life Protection Act, which" impose serious restrictions. Referring to the facts of each case, respondents deny or do not admit they are the pattadars and in some cases, referring to grant made by the Government under Land Grant Rules and conferment of occupancy right under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act contend such orders/ grant do not confer right to quarry precious stones.