CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J.

( 1 ) IN the view I have taken in W. P. No. 4785/1987 disposed of just a few minutes before, the petitioner in these petitions also is entitled to the same relief.

( 2 ) THE impugned order recovering damages and cost by the Tahsildar of chamarajanagar as at Annexures C and D are quashed.

( 3 ) HOWEVER, an extra word is required to be added on account of the second order which is now directed to be quashed. That order purports to be a levy of fine for diverting agricultural land for non-agricultural use without the required permission under Sec. 95 of the Karnataka land Revenue Act, 1964, In a batch of petitions disposed of by me recently after carefully analysing the provisions of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888, the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, as well as the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) act, 1957 and the Karnataka Minor mineral Concession Rules, 1969, I have held that the owner of a land need not take any permission as the law now stands to quarry granite, a minor mineral, occurring on his land. I have also held having regard to the provisions made in the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession rules, 1969, that in certain areas of the State where the occupant is permitted to quarry granite for commercial exploitation is held to be not diversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use, as long as he pays a royalty at a specified rate and for the reason that granite quarry cannot be treated as agricultural land because nothing can be grown on the quarry. Therefore, there is no question of diversion of agricultural land to non- agricultural use.

( 4 ) IN the result, as already stated, annexures C and D are quashed. Rule will accordingjy issue and be made absolute. There will be no order as to costs.

--- *** ---

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document