ANUSUYAMMA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
ST
RESERVED ON 1 APRIL, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 8139 OF 2024 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
1. ANUSUYAMMA
W/O. LATE B.G. GOPALKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
2. B. G. MARUTI PRASAD
S/O. LATE B.G. GOPALKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
LRs OF ORIGINAL LESSEE
(LATE) B. GANGANNA
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
BELLARA VILLAGE & POST
CHIKKANAYAKAN HALLI TALUKA
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 218
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAVINDRA GAJANAN KOLLE., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
VEERENDRA
KUMAR K M
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES
- 2 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
3. THE DIRECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN
NO. 49, RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER AND
COURT APPOINTED COMMISSIONER
MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU
BENGALURU - 560 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION,
DIRECTING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT AT
NO.GaBhuE/Uni(Kha.A)/KaGaGuSa-41/2018-19 DATED 06/03/2019
RD
PASSED BY THE 3 RESPONDENT DIRECTOR AND COMPETENT
AUTHORITY, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
- 3 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, impugning an endorsement dated
06.03.2019, issued by the respondent No.3 [Director and
Competent Authority, Department of Mines and Geology] rejecting
the petitioners request for extending the validity of the quarry lease
over an area of 3-20 acres in Survey No.26 of Maddakkanahalli
village in Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District. The quarry lease is
hereinafter also referred to as QL-41.
2. A plain reading of the impugned endorsement indicates that
the petitioners' request for renewal of QL-41 was rejected on the
ground that the quarry area falls in Survey No.26, which is a lake
and within the jurisdiction of the Minor Irrigation Department. The
petitioners contend that the extension of QL-41 could not be denied
on that ground, as it was considered at the time the lease was
granted to their predecessor in interest. They seek to rely on an
expert report of the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department,
who was appointed as the Court Commissioner by this Court. He
- 4 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
had, inter alia , reported that as per tank pahani details, the tank
(lake) had not received water since the year 1967-68, and there
were sufficient sources for drinking water.
3. The principle question to be examined is whether the
petitioners are entitled to an extension of QL-41 in terms of Rule 8A
of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [ the
Rules ].
Facts
4. The petitioners' claim their rights in respect of QL-41 through
one B.Ganganna, the original quarry lease holder, as his legal
heirs. Sri. B.Ganganna, since deceased, had applied for a quarry
lease for extraction of Grey granite over the land falling in Sy.No.26
of Maddakkanahalli village, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District.
5. Sri B.Ganganna and his son, Sri B.G.Ramadas, were
granted a quarry lease over 3-00 acres of land in Sy.No.26 of
Maddakkanahalli village, Sira Taluk, and were permitted to carry
out mining operations for quarrying grey granite.
6. Certain residents of Maddakkanahalli village filed writ
petitions as public interest litigation, contending that there is a
village tank in the subject area and that permitting the grantees to
- 5 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
carry on mining operations would damage it. They claimed that the
mining operations would be hazardous to the members of the
public.
7. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 03.12.1992
passed in W.P.Nos.23120/1989 to 23123/1989 C/w
W.P.Nos.17260 to 17263/1988 C/w. W.P.No. 7436/1989, accepted
the contention that carrying on mining activities in the area
surrounding the village tank would damage the tank (lake), and the
notification granting the mining lease over the said area was
quashed.
8. Aggrieved by the said order dated 03.12.1992,
Sri.B.Ganganna and his son Sri. B.G.Ramadas filed appeals
(W.A.Nos.41 to 49/1993) before the Division Bench of this Court. In
the said proceedings, the Division Bench passed an interim order
appointing the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, South, K. R. Circle,
Bangalore as a Court Commissioner to visit the quarry and the tank
situated in Survey No.26 of Maddakkanahalli village, Sira Taluk
and submit a report as to "whether the operation of the quarry in
question by blasting the rock would affect the surrounding areas
including the tank".
- 6 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
9. Pursuant to said direction, the Chief Engineer submitted his
report.
10. Since the said Commissioner's report was not before the
learned Single Judge, this court by an order dated 15.07.1993
disposed of the intra-court appeals, observing that it would be open
to the appellants (Sri.B.Ganganna and his son B.G.Ramadas) to
make an appropriate application to the Competent Authority for
grant of lease as claimed by them. The Court further directed the
Competent Authority to take a comprehensive view of the situation
in view of the material placed on record, including the report of the
Chief Engineer, and take an appropriate decision after hearing the
concerned parties.
11. In compliance with the aforementioned order, the Competent
Authority considered the application for quarry lease and executed
QL 41 (the quarry lease deed dated 28.09.1996) in favour of
Sri.B.Ganganna over an area of 3-20 acres falling in Sy.No.26 of
Maddakkanahalli village, Sira Taluk, for a term of five years.
12. Sri B.Ganganna passed away on 27.01.2000, during the
term of the QL-41. After his demise, his widow Smt. Lokamma
sent a letter dated 19.06.2000 requesting the transfer of QL-41 in
- 7 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
her favour. The said letter is not on record. However, a reference to
the same is found in a letter dated 10.02.2004 issued by the
Secretary to Government, (Mines, SSI & Textiles) Commerce and
Industries Department to the Director, Department of Mines and
Geology.
13. The said transfer was not effected, and the term of QL-41
expired on 27.09.2001. Thereafter, on 04.01.2003, Smt. Lokamma
filed an application to renew the lease QL-41. Admittedly, the
application for renewal of the lease was beyond the period
stipulated under the erstwhile Rule 9(2) of the Rules as were then
in force.
14. On 10.02.2004, the Secretary to Government, (Mines, SSI &
Textiles) Commerce and Industries Department (respondent No.2)
sent a letter to Director, Department of Mines and Geology
(respondent No.3), communicating the approval for transfer of QL-
41 in favour of Smt Lokamma. The said letter indicates that it was
in reference to the respondent No.3's letters dated 25.03.2003 and
19.11.2003. The said letter states that in case the department had
taken action to transfer the quarry lease (QL-41) in favour of Smt.
Lokamma, pursuant to her request dated 19.06.2000, she would
have submitted a renewal application in time. Respondent no. 2
- 8 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
directed respondent No.3 to take suitable action for renewal of the
quarry lease in accordance with law.
15. Prior thereto, on 31.07.2003, the Deputy Commissioner,
Tumakuru District had communicated his no objection for issuance
of licence to extract grey granite from the area covered under QL-
41. On 08.12.2010, a Committee constituted under Rule 11 of the
th
Rules (as then in force), at its 69 meeting, recommended renewal
of the quarry lease QL-41 in favour of Smt. Lokamma, subject to
clearance of all dues. The said Committee also observed that the
applied area is suitable for quarrying.
16. In the meanwhile, on 06.12.2010, the Deputy Director,
Department of Mines and Geology issued a no dues certificate
confirming that there were no arrears for the year 2009-10 for the
said lease. However, the certificate expressly stated that, as certain
payments had been made belatedly, it was issued subject to
payment of interest.
17. On 16.06.2012, the office of the Deputy Conservator of
Forests issued a letter conveying the Forest Department's opinion
that the subject area could be granted for quarrying activities.
- 9 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
18. Thereafter, the matter regarding renewal of quarry lease QL-
41 was once again placed before the Committee constituted under
th
Rule 11 of the Rules at the meeting held on 07.11.2014 (80
meeting). At the said meeting, it was noticed that the recent
opinion of the Deputy Commissioner for the grant of a quarry lease
had not been obtained, and therefore, it was suggested to once
again obtain the opinion of the said authority.
19. In the meantime, Rule 8(5) of the Rules was substituted with
effect from 16.12.2013. Rule 8(5)(i) of the amended Rules required
the competent authority to consult the Deputy Commissioner of the
District and obtain a no-objection certificate before granting or
renewing a lease, licence or working permission in respect of a
specified mineral.
20. In view of the above, the Deputy Commissioner was once
again called upon to furnish his opinion, and the said authority did
so by a letter dated 13.07.2015. This time, the Deputy
Commissioner noted that there was no permission to conduct
quarrying activities on the subject land, which is a government lake.
The Deputy Commissioner also referred to the Revenue
Inspector's report, which stated that Survey No.26 is a government
lake. The Deputy Commissioner also referred to the decisions of
- 10 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
the Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and
1
others (followed by the Madras High Court in L. Krishna v. State
2
of Tamil Nadu ) in support of his opinion that no permission to
conduct any quarrying activities could be permitted in a lake bed.
21. Smt. Lokamma (the widow of the original lessee under QL-
41) expired on 08.05.2016. Almost two years thereafter, the
petitioners who claim to be the heirs of the original lessee
(petitioner No.1 claims to be the widow of the son of the original
lessee and petitioner No.2, her son, is the grandson of the original
lessee) filed their request with the Director, Department of Mines
and Geology. They claimed that the original lease was deemed to
be extended under Rule 8A of the Rules as substituted with effect
from 12.08.2016.
22. The said request was rejected by the impugned
endorsement. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioners
have filed the present petition.
23. Rule 8A(2) was substituted with effect from 17.03.2023 and it
is inter alia provided that all the quarrying leases or licences
granted before the commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral
1
(2001)6 SCC 496
2
2005(4) CTC 1 Madras
- 11 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016 would be deemed to have
been granted for 50 years in respect of specified minor minerals
and 30 years in respect of non-specified minerals from the date of
their original grant.
Rival contentions
24. The petitioners contend that, in terms of Rule 8A as
substituted by the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession
(Amendment) Rules, 2023, all quarry leases granted before the
commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession
(Amendment) Rules, 2016, are deemed to have been granted for a
period of fifty years in respect of specified minor minerals.
25. Next, it is contended that the impugned endorsement is
erroneous, as the issue of whether QL-41 could have been granted
in respect of the land falling in Survey No. 26 was examined by the
authorities at the time of the original grant. The department had
also considered the Expert report of the Court Commissioner
appointed by this Court and, on the said basis, executed the quarry
lease (QL-41).
26. It is also contended that the delay in filing an application for
renewal of the quarry lease was condoned and, therefore, cannot
- 12 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
be a ground for denying the petitioners the benefit of a deemed
extension of the original lease.
27. The respondents had filed their statements of objection and
additional statements of objection contesting the petition on
essentially four grounds. First, the application for renewal of the
lease was not filed within the stipulated time; therefore, the lease
(QL-41) expired on 27.09.2001. Second, the present petition has
been filed after an inordinate delay of almost four years, and there
are no grounds to condone the delay. Third, the subject area over
which the renewal of the lease is sought is a lake, and quarrying
activities cannot be permitted on the bed of the government lake.
And fourth, that the petitioners have an equally efficacious remedy
for revision under Rule 53 of the Rules and therefore the present
writ petition ought not to be entertained.
Reasons and Conclusion
28. As apparent from the above, there are two principal
questions to be addressed. First, whether the quarry lease could be
permitted in an area that comprises a government lake; and
second, whether the petitioners' predecessors were entitled to
renewal of the quarry lease QL-41, even though the application for
renewal had not been filed within the specified time.
- 13 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
29. There is no dispute that the subject area over which QL-41
was granted is a part of the bed of a government lake. However the
petitioners contend that, notwithstanding that the area comprised in
Survey No.26 of Maddakkanahalli village, Sira Taluk is a
government tank, quarrying could be permitted as the said lake had
dried up and had not received water since 1967-68. The said
assertion is sought to be substantiated by the Expert report dated
22.03.1993 furnished by the Chief Engineer of the Minor Irrigation
Department (Court Commissioner).
30. At this stage it is relevant to refer to the report dated
22.03.1993 of the Expert (the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation
Department), furnished to this Court. A copy of the said report is
placed on record. The said report indicates that there is a small
irrigation tank with an atchkat of less than 40 hectares in Survey
No.26. Further records indicated that the tank had an Atchkat of 32
acres and 37 guntas. The water spread area of the tank in question
was 53 acres and 5 guntas. However, part of the lake area had
been segregated by the accumulation of excavated debris and
quarry muck. The relevant extract to the said report is set out
below.
- 14 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
"As per the details available from the records of Zillah
Parishad Division, Mudhugiri the tank having an Atchkat of
32 acres and 37 guntas. The water spread area is 53 acres
and 5 guntas. It is having one irrigation sluice at the left
bank, it has no water over it. On enquiry, it is reported that
the surplus water used to discharge through the small halla
on the right side of bund, which is now become a quarry.
This quarry (i.e., portion of Sy.No.26) and the tank
bed is bifurcated by putting the excavated debris and quarry
muck and katcha road for the movement of lorry and other
vehicles of private companies has been formed.
31. It was also reported that at the time of inspection there was
no water in the tank and it had completely dried up. The Court
Commissioner also reported that, as per the extract of the pahani
details, the tank had not received water since 1967-68. It was also
reported that if the tank gets water, it stands there for only about
two months in the rainy season and then dries up due to seepage.
Thus, there was no possibility of using the said water for drinking
purposes. The Court Commissioner also reported that there was no
problem of drinking water as there existed borewells in the village.
Additionally, the Commissioner reported that quarry operations
appear to have been conducted in the area for a long time, as there
were deep ditches and pits more than 50 feet deep resulting from
quarrying, and water from the tank bed would seep into these
ditches. The water so collected would be pumped and used for
crops in the Atchkat area. It is also reported that the opinion of the
- 15 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
Irrigation Authorities had not been sought before the area was
granted for quarrying activities.
32. It is apparent from the report that the area in question is a
lake bed, and that no permission had been sought from the
Irrigation Department to divert the said land for quarrying purposes.
33. However, notwithstanding the same, the competent
authorities granted the lease and executed QL-41 in favour of Sri.
B.Ganganna (original lessee). After his demise, his widow filed an
application on 04.01.2003 for seeking renewal of the lease and the
said application remains pending for several years.
34. It is also apparent from the records that quarrying activities
were carried out in the subject land even after the lease had
expired. It is contended by the petitioners, and not disputed by the
respondents, that dispatch permits had been issued and royalty
had been collected in respect of mineral extracted after the term of
lease QL-41 had expired. The documents placed on record indicate
that prior to 2015, the concerned authorities had expressed their
opinion in favour of permitting quarrying activities on the subject
land, notwithstanding that it was part of a government lake.
- 16 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
35. As noted above, Smt. Lokamma had filed an application for
renewal of the lease, and the Deputy Commissioner had furnished
his no-objection to conduct quarrying by a letter dated 31.07.2003.
The said letter also notes that the subject land, falling under Survey
No. 26 of Maddakkanahalli village, is classified as a government
lake, and there was a temple and a school within half a kilometre of
the said area. Notwithstanding the same, the Deputy
Commissioner concurred with the recommendation of the Tahsildar
and furnished his no objection to the quarry lease for extracting
grey granite over the subject land.
36. The Deputy Director has also furnished a report dated
11.08.2010 pursuant to Smt. Lokamma's application for renewal of
QL-41. The same also did not indicate that the department had any
objections to the renewal of the quarry lease.
th
37. The minutes of the 69 meeting of the Rule 11 Committee
held on 08.12.2010 record the Committee’s view that the applied
area is suitable for a quarry and the recommendation for renewal of
the quarry lease subject to clearance of all dues.
38. The Deputy Conservator of Forests has also furnished a
letter dated 16.06.2012 stating that there were no reserved forest
- 17 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
area within 10 to 15 kilometers of the area in question; that
quarrying activities had been conducted there for several years;
and that they did not harm wild animals and birds.
39. However, there seems to have been a change in opinion
thereafter. The matter regarding renewal of the quarry lease (QL-
41) was once again placed before the Committee constituted under
Rule 11 on 07.11.2014. In the meantime, as noted above, Rule
8(5) of the Rules was substituted with effect from 16.12.2013,
requiring the Deputy Commissioner of the District to be consulted
before the grant or renewal of a lease, licence, or any working
permission for a specified mineral.
40. The Rule-11 Committee once again sought the opinion of the
Deputy Commissioner. He furnished the same by a covering letter
dated 13.07.2015. Contrary to the earlier opinion of the Revenue
Authorities, the Deputy Commissioner has now raised an objection
to the renewal of lease QL-41 for carrying on quarrying activities in
a government lake.
41. As noted above, Smt Lokamma, who had made the
application for renewal of the quarry lease QL-41, expired on
08.05.2016.
- 18 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
42. The Rules were amended, and in terms of Rule 8A of the
Rules, as substituted by the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession
(Amendment) Rules, 2016, with effect from 12.08.2016, the term of
the lease granted in respect of a specified minor mineral was
deemed to have been extended for a period of thirty years from the
date of the grant. After the amendment to the Rules, the petitioners
sent a letter dated 18.01.2018, requesting the grant of a quarry
lease to extract grey granite by extending the term of QL-41 for a
period of thirty years from the date of the original grant.
43. Plainly, a view that quarrying activities are not to be
permitted in an area which is a lake cannot be faulted. Although it
is contended that the lake in question is a dry lake and has not
received water since 1967-68, the material on record indicates that
whenever the tank does receive water, the same stands for about
two months during the rainy season before draining away by
seepage. The Court Commissioner’s report also indicated that
mounds of debris and excavated material have been created to
demarcate the area of the lake where quarrying activities were
conducted. It is also reported that deep pits from quarrying collect
water from the lake, which is then used for irrigation. In these facts,
- 19 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
the revenue authorities' opinion that quarrying activities should not
be permitted warrants no interference.
44. The village residents were concerned about permitting
quarrying in a lake bed. This was specifically flagged by some of
them, who filed public interest litigation to prevent the grant of a
quarry lease in the area in question way back in 1988-89.
However, after the matter was remitted to the concerned authorities
to consider the question afresh, the said authorities, despite being
aware that the area in question is a part of the lake, concurred with
the grant of the quarry lease.
45. We are unable to accept that the Deputy Commissioner was
estopped from forming an opinion that quarrying ought not to be
permitted in a lake bed on account of the earlier opinion of the
concerned authorities. The renewal of the lease is, in effect, a fresh
lease, albeit on the same terms and conditions as the extant lease.
And, it is not disputed that the no-objection of the concerned
revenue authorities was necessary for the renewal of the lease.
46. The next question for consideration is whether the benefit of
the amended Rule 8A of the Rules, as amended by the Karnataka
Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2023, is available
- 20 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
to the petitioners. The said question must be answered in the
negative.
47. The term of QL-41 expired on 27.09.2001. Whilst the matter
regarding its renewal has been pending before the authorities for
several years, it is undisputed that the lease had not been
renewed. Smt Lokamma's application for renewal of the lease was
filed on 04.01.2003, which was beyond the stipulated period, within
which the application could be filed.
48. We may refer to Rule 9(2) of the Rules, as was in force at the
material time. The same read as under.
"9. Application for grant or renewal of a quarrying lease. —
(1)
(2) An application for renewal of a quarrying lease to quarry
specified minor mineral belonging to the State Government
which has not been notified under Rule 8-B shall be in
Form-R and shall be made to the Director at least ninety
days before the expiry of the lease. The application shall be
accompanied by a fee of rupees two thousand in the form of
a treasury challan under the specified Head of account
together with the difference of amount of security deposit, if
any, to be paid by the lessee at the prevailing rates in the
form of treasury challan [and a certificate issued by the
Competent Authority for having cleared the arrears, if any,
in respect of any lease held by him as on the date of making
application for renewal]."
49. Thus, the application for renewal was required to be filed
ninety days prior to 27.09.2001. There is no power to extend the
- 21 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
time for filing the application for renewal of a quarry lease; thus,
QL-41 expired on 27.09.2001, on expiry of its term. In the absence
of any specific provision permitting renewal of the lease beyond the
period stipulated at the material time, the concerned authorities
have no power to renew an expired lease.
50. Smt. Lokamma's application for renewal of the lease for QL
41 has not been placed on record. The said application indicates
that she had sought renewal of the lease for a further term of five
(5) years. Thus, even if it is assumed that the said application
would have been filed within the time and allowed, QL-41 would, in
any event, have expired on 27.09.2006. There is no averment that
applications for further renewal of the lease, QL-41, were made by
Smt. Lokamma or the petitioners.
51. Concededly, Rule 8A of the Rules was amended with effect
from 12.08.2016 and was further substituted with effect from
17.03.2023. The import of the amendments was not to resuscitate
leases that had expired and in respect of which no applications for
renewals were pending. The deemed extension of the lease term
did not revive dead leases. Rule 8A(3) of the Rules as in force with
effect from 12.08.2016 expressly provides that the deemed
extension is “ subject to the condition that all terms and conditions
- 22 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
of the lease have been complied with and also subject to the
condition that application for renewal of the expired lease had been
made by the lessee within the time required for making such
3
renewal application ” [ G.K.Basavaraju v. State of Karnataka ].
52. In the present case, the renewal application filed by Smt.
Lokamma was beyond the stipulated period and therefore could not
have been granted. The contention that she was prevented from
filing the application because QL-41 was not transferred in her
name after her husband's demise, despite her having applied for
the same, is unpersuasive. This is because she had applied for
renewal on 04.01.2003, even though QL-41 had not been
transferred in her name. Thus, nothing prevented her from seeking
renewal ninety days prior to its expiry. In any event, the efficacy of
the application stood exhausted, as the term for which renewal was
sought expired on 27.09.2006.
53. The petitioners have relied on several communications on
record indicating that Lokamma's application for renewal was
considered to be subsisting. As noted above, the same was put up
before the Committee constituted under Rule 11 of the Rules at
th th
least twice (at the 69 meeting held on 08.12.2010 and at the 80
3
NC:2025:KHC:28411-DB
- 23 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
meeting held on 07.11.2014). The minutes of the meetings also
indicate that the said application was treated as live/subsisting, and
at the 69th meeting, it was also recommended for renewal.
However, the view or the conduct of the authorities in this regard
does not create any vested right or interest in the extension of the
quarry lease term. The quarry lease can be granted, renewed or
extended only in accordance with the Rules that are in force.
54. Smt. Lokamma expired on 08.05.2016. As on the date of her
demise, the quarry lease QL-41 had not been renewed in her
favour. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners confirmed that the quarrying activities
had stopped in the year 2012 itself.
55. In the given circumstances, we are unable to accept that any
subsisting interest or right in respect of QL-41 was vested in Smt.
Lokamma as on the date of her demise that is on 08.05.2016.
56. The petitioners claim rights as legal heirs of the original
lessee. However, they had made no application for the transfer of
the QL-41 in their names, upon the demise of the original lessee or
upon the demise of Smt. Lokamma.
- 24 -
WP No. 8139 of 2024
57. In view of the above, we are unable to accept that the
petitioners are entitled to any relief in this petition. The petition is
accordingly dismissed.
58. Pending applications shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
KMV