State law governs quarrying after reorganisation, displacing reliance on former regional revenue codes.

The petitioner, a pattadar of land in Balakundi Village, Bagalkote District, was alleged to have extracted ruby-red granite without the required licence.

Following a local police case, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) investigated and filed a charge sheet.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 14 September 2020 taking cognizance in Special C.C. No. 679 of 2020, as well as the ensuing proceedings.

He contended, among other things, that the Bombay Land Revenue Code permitted extraction on his land without a licence and that the complainant lacked authority to institute the case.

Whether the petitioner could rely on the Bombay Land Revenue Code to claim that no licence was required for granite extraction in the area after the reorganisation of States.

Whether the complaint was liable to be quashed because it was filed by a person not authorised to do so.

Whether the challenged cognizance order and proceedings warranted quashing on the petitioner’s other grounds.

The Court considered the statutory framework governing mineral extraction, including the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, and the petitioner’s reliance on the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

It applied the principle that, following reorganisation of States, the law governing the State applies to its territory; regional nomenclature such as “Bombay-Karnataka” does not, by itself, preserve the neighbouring State’s law for that area.

On authorisation, the Court relied on the notification produced by the Lokayukta and held that the SIT head could be treated as entitled to file a complaint on behalf of the Government for offences within the SIT’s remit.

The Court also declined to determine issues that could affect the parties’ positions at the pending trial.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the Bombay Land Revenue Code, holding that the area’s historical classification as part of the Bombay-Karnataka region did not displace the law applicable in Karnataka after State reorganisation.

It therefore found no basis to quash the proceedings on the ground that the petitioner could extract granite from his land without a licence under that Code.

On the complaint’s authorisation, it accepted the notification produced by the respondent and further considered the SIT head entitled to act for the Government in relation to offences within the SIT’s remit.

The Court found no merit in the grounds urged, but expressly avoided a mini-trial or further findings on the merits.

It dismissed the writ petition and left all other contentions open to be raised at trial in accordance with law.