HARI NATH TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) BY this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs.- (A) that the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act 1993 (Karnataka Act No. 20 of 1993) be declared to be unconstitutional and void; (b) issue a Writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents herein or their officers, men, servants, agents, subordinates or any one claiming through or under them from interfering with the right of the petitioner to excavate and transport granite from the lands fully set out in the schedule; (c) to direct the respondents to pay costs.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner has filed this Petition alleging that he is the absolute owner of the land mentioned in the schedule given at page 16 of the Writ Petition, describing the property in dispute as under:-

( 3 ) LAND bearing Sy. No. 83/7 of Then ganayakanahalli village, Sathanur Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, in the Bangalore District measuring 4 acres and bounded as below :- east by Land of Kamalingaiah; west by Land of K. Shivanna; north by Land of Veerabasavaiah; south by Lands of Gowramma and Kalalingegowda. Thus the petitioner has described the property in dispute by the survey number, area and very specifically by its description by boundaries. The petitioner has mentioned that he is the owner of this land. It is also alleged that in the revenue records the land is recorded in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he having got the right to excavate granite and other ordinary minerals as absolute owner thereof, as held by the Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions, including the one given in W. P. No. 4563 of 1987, the government or the opposite parties or their employees, agents or servants have got no right to interfere with the petitioner's absolute right to excavate that. In this connection petitioner has referred to section 38 of the Mysore Land Revenue Code. Section 70 of the karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 has also been quoted. The petitioner's case is that to get rid of the Judgments of this Court, the state Government enacted Karnataka Land Revenue Amendment act, 1993 (Act No. 20 of 1993) and thereby amended Section 70 of the karnataka Land Revenue Act and the expression 'save as otherwise expressly provided under' has been substituted therein for the words "notwithstanding anything contained in". The petitioner's case is that the said amendment of 1993 is null, void and ultra vires.

( 4 ) NO counter affidavit has been filed. The learned Government Counsel has stated in the course of arguments that he has ascertained from the Tahsildar that the land is Patta Land.

( 5 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Udaya Holla and Sri H. H. Kaladgi, the learned Government Advocate.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Udaya Holla in support of his claim has relied on the Full Bench Decision of this Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA vs DUNDAMADA SHETTY, which has later on been followed by Single Judge of this Court, in support of his contention that amending Act introducing amendment in section 70 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is ultra vires. The learned Government Counsel admitted that the amending Act has been held to be ultra vires and he submitted that Section 70 as unamended did not affect the right of the owners of Patta Land. He submitted that Section 70 of the Act only applies to the cases where the land has been transferred by lease by State and the ownership of the land vests in the Government, then the right in those cases to excavate granite are provided to vest in the State Government, but where claimant is himself the owner of the land and himself wants to excavate granite without creating lease in favour of any body, he is entitled to do that. The learned Government Counsel very fairly conceded that the case no doubt is covered by the Full Bench decision, but tried to raise a technical plea and he did rais

Click Here to Read the rest of this document