1. This writ petition raises a short, but interesting question. Succinctly stated, the issue is, as to whether the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, was justified in demanding compounding fee under Rule 107-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules” for the sake of brevity) made under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in relation to sub-section (4) of Section 96 of the said Act. Annexure-A, the order dated 31/07/2012, is impugned in this writ petition.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted a quarrying licence on 03/06/2000, whereby it was allowed to extract pink granite from an area admeasuring 18.22 acres of ‘patta land’. Similar quarrying licence was granted to the petitioner on 24/05/2002 to extract pink granite in an extent of land admeasuring 11.34 acres. The third quarrying lease was granted to the petitioner on 06/08/2002 for extraction of pink granite from an area admeasuring 4.32 acres of land. These three extents of lands over which quarrying leases were granted are ownership or ‘patta lands’ and agricultural lands. The petitioner commenc