M. Kokila vs The State of Karnataka and Others

This Appeal was heard and reserved on 24/3/2008. Since judgment could not be pronounced within three months, in view of the decision of Supreme Court, we got it listed to re-hear this case.

Today there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. We have perused the order passed by the learned single Judge. There is delay in filing the appeal. I.A.I/2006 is filed to condone the same. Accepting the reasons mentioned and applying the ratio of the decision reported in AIR 2000 SC 2306, we allow I.A.I/2006 and condone the delay.

The issue involved in this case is, whether the owners of Patta lands on which quarrying activities are being carried on, are required to obtain conversion u/s 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act of 1964, as quarrying of minor mineral is not agricultural operation. The learned single Judge has dismissed a batch of writ petitions, including that of the appellant herein, by the common order under appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellant deleted as for order at. 3-7-2009 strongly relied upon the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 4563/1987 and connected cases disposed of on 14-7-1987 (M. Veeramadhu v. Deputy Commissioner). Learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that for carrying on mining activities in the Patta lands, conversion u/s 95 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act is required as quarrying is not agricultural operation. The learned single Judge elaborately gone into this legal issue with reference to various decisions of the Apex Court including the aforementioned decision in Veeramadhu''s case of this Court and held that the observations made therein may constitute obiter dicta and not laying down ratio. The reasons assigned to arrive at such a conclusion are, in that case question of examining and interpreting Section 95 of the Act did not arise and secondly, ever since the decision rendered, Section 95 of the Act underwent considerable changes and therefore the decision rendered earlier to such amendments cannot be applied to the present provisions of the Act.

Patta lands are agricultural lands. In such lands agricultural operations have to be carried-out. As per Section 2(1) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 "agriculture" includes acquaculture, horticulture, raising of crops, grass or garden produce, dairy farming, poultry farming, breeding of livestock and grazing. It does not include mining or quarrying. In view of availability of minor minerals in patta lands, quarrying operations are being carried on. It amounts to change of land use from agricultural purpose to non agricultural purpose. Since it involves diversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural purpose, conversion is necessary u/s 95(2) of the Act, which reads:

95(2) If any occupant of land assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture wishes to divert such land or any part thereof to any other purpose he shall not with standing anything contained in any law for the time being in force apply for permission to the Deputy Commissioner who may, subject to the provisions of this section and the rules made under this Act, refuse permission or grant it on such conditions as he may think fit:

In view of this specific provision, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in issuing the Endorsements impugned in the writ petitions and the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petitions holding that conversion is necessary to use the Patta lands for extracting minor mineral from them. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge and the order passed by him does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of this Court''s Appellate Jurisdiction and power

We may also add that for doing agricultural operations, no conversion, license or permit is required whereas for carrying on mining operations to extract minor mineral, conversion u/s 95 of the Act, license defined u/s 2(k) and for their transportation permit defined u/s 2(h) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 are required. Therefore, the appellant-writ petitioners cannot do mining operations without conversion order, license and permit. Consequently, the decision in Veeramadhu''s case has no application and reliance placed on it is misplaced and legal contention urged by the learned Senior Counsel placing reliance upon the said decision is wholly untenable in law.

Further we are in respectful agreement with the findings and reasons recorded by the learned single judge on the contentious points raised in the writ petition, which are answered against the Appellant in the impugned Judgment, after referring to the rival legal contentions, provisions of the KLR Act and decisions of the Apex Court and this Court,

For the reasons stated above, the writ appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.