Point of law : Right of quarrying - Under sub-rule (1) of Rule 32, it is provided no person in possession of patta lands in Karnataka State shall undertake quarrying operations in his land for minor minerals except with a quarrying license granted under Chapter V of the said Rules.

ORDER :

1. Heard the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

FACTUAL ASPECTS:

2. For the purpose of deciding the controversy involved in the petition, a brief reference to the factual aspects will be necessary.

3. The petitioner is claiming to be the owner of a patta land more particularly described in the petition. He applied under sub-rule (1) of Rule 32 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short “the said Rules of 1994”) for grant of a permission for quarrying granite stone. On 14th January 2016, a work order was issued to the petitioner for recommencing the stone quarrying operation on the patta land in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 32 of the said Rules of 1994. The work order was in respect of a land in Herandyapanahalli Village, Kanakapura Taluk, District Ramanagara. As noted in the said work order, permissions and clearances were granted to the petitioner including Environment Clearance Certificate. On 27th May 2016, the Commissioner and Director of the Department of Mines and Geology addressed a letter to the Deputy Director of the Department of Mines and Geology with a direction to take action of cancellation of the permission granted to the petitioner. On 22nd June 2016, an order was made by the Deputy Director, the Department of Mines and Geology recording that the land subject matter of the petition was situated within a distance of one kilometer from the boundary of Bannerghatta National Park (for short “the said National Park”). It appears that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 37789/2016 for challenging the said order. Initially, by the order dated 22nd March 2017, subject to the outcome of the said writ petition, this Court permitted the petitioner to continue the mining operations for a period of six weeks. On 7th June 2017, the said interim order was extended till further orders.

4. In the meanwhile, a draft notification was published on 15th June 2016 for the purpose of declaring the Eco Sensitive Zone of the said National Park. Another draft notification was published for the same purpose on 30th October 2018.

5. A show cause notice was issued by the Deputy Director calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the work order issued on 14th January, 2016 for carrying out the quarrying operations should not be cancelled. Written submissions were filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Director. An order was made on 2nd January 2019 by the Deputy Director canceling the work order dated 14th January 2016 issued to the petitioner on the ground that the site was within one kilometer from the boundary of the said National Park. The present petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 37789/2016 in which there was a challenge to the aforesaid endorsements/orders dated 22nd June 2016 and 2nd January 2019. The said writ petition, along with two other similar petitions, were heard and disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by the judgment and order dated 31st May 2019. The Division Bench has noted the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel that as per the notification dated 27th February, 2007 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and keeping in mind the directions issued by the Apex Court, environmental clearance is required for non-forest activities within a radius of 10 kilometers from a Wild Life Sanctuary or a National Park. The contention raised by the present petitioner which is noted in paragraph 15 of the said judgment is that the final notification relating to Eco Sensitive Zone of the said National Park is ready and it is not yet issued. In paragraphs 18 to 20 of the said judgment (Pages 239 and 240), the Division Bench has obs