IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 13044 OF 2020 (GM-MM-S)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI S.T. PRASAD S/O S.L. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT KIRAN, NO.11

1^ST CROSS, CHANGAMARAJU LAYOUT (C.R. LAYOUT), J.P. NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 078 …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.N. ASWATHANARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.A. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE)

Dig itally AND:

signed by SRIDEVI S 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Location: REP. BY ITS SECRETARY High Court DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY of Karnataka M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001

2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR AND REVISIONAL AUTHORITY OF SOUTH ZONE MYSORE - 570 022

4. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101

5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION CHIKKBALLAPURA - 562 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 23.10.2017 VIDE No.DMG/SGC/SQL.A701/2017-18/3510-3811, ANNEXURE-X AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT REVISIONAL AUTHORITY DISMISSING THE REVISION PETITION R.P.26/2019-2020 DATED 13.08.2020 VIDE: No.DMG:JD:

Davamai: Revision:2020-21/840 ANNEXURE-Zd & ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA C.A.V. JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

INTRODUCTION

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an endorsement dated 23.10.2017 passed by respondent No.4 [the Competent Authority], holding that the petitioner's application for quarry lease was barred in terms of Rule 8-B(1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [the KMMC Rules] as amended with effect from 12.08.2016. Additionally, the petitioner impugns an order dated 13.08.2020 passed by respondent No.3 [Revisional Authority], rejecting the petitioner's revision petition filed under Rule 53 of the KMMC Rules. The petitioner prays that the Competent Authority be directed to execute a quarry lease pursuant to the notification dated 08.04.2011, sanctioning the grant of a quarry lease for mining building stones in respect of an area to the extent of 15 acres of revenue land falling in Survey No.192, E. Thimmasandra Village, Shidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapura District, for a period of five years.

2. The respondent authorities propose to process the petitioner’s application for the grant of a quarry lease for 10 acres of land. In terms of Rule 15 of the KMMC Rules as currently in force, no person can acquire a lease or license exceeding 50 acres for the purpose of mineral-based industries and 10 acres in case of other purposes. Thus, they contend that a quarry lease for quarrying building stones cannot be executed for an area exceeding 10 acres. The petitioner claims that since the notification for the grant of lease was issued on 08.04.2011, the KMMC Rules as then in force are applicable. In terms of Rule 25(1) of the KMMC Rules as applicable at the material time, the maximum area for which a quarry lease for mining a non-specified minor mineral was 25 acres. The petitioner claims that, since a quarry lease for an area of 15 acres was granted, the petitioner is entitled to a lease covering 15 acres in conformity with the grant.

3. The petitioner has raised several issues in this petition. However, given that the respondent authorities are agreeable to process the execution of a quarry lease to the extent of 10 acres, the controversy is confined to the question of whether the petitioner is entitled to a quarry lease over an area exceeding 10 acres, notwithstanding that Rule 15 of the KMMC Rules as in force re