A quarry lease that has expired due to failure to apply for renewal within the prescribed period under the Rules cannot be considered as 'subsisting' for the purpose of claiming a deemed extension under subsequent rule amendments, particularly when the land involved is a protected water body.

RESERVED ON 1ST APRIL, 2026

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT AT NO.GaBhuE/Uni(Kha.A)/KaGaGuSa-41/2018-19 DATED 06/03/2019 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DIRECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND 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)

1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning an endorsement dated 06.03.2019, issued by the respondent No.3 [Director and Competent Authority, Department of Mines and Geology] rejecting the petitioners request for extending the validity of the quarry lease over an area of 3-20 acres in Survey No.26 of Maddakkanahalli village in Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District. The quarry lease is hereinafter also referred to as QL-41.

2. A plain reading of the impugned endorsement indicates that the petitioners' request for renewal of QL-41 was rejected on the ground that the quarry area falls in Survey No.26, which is a lake and within the jurisdiction of the Minor Irrigation Department. The petitioners contend that the extension of QL-41 could not be denied on that ground, as it was considered at the time the lease was granted to their predecessor in interest. They seek to rely on an expert report of the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, who was appointed as the Court Commissioner by this Court. He had, inter alia, reported that as per tank pahani details, the tank (lake) had not received water since the year 1967-68, and there were sufficient sources for drinking water.

3. The principle question to be examined is whether the petitioners are entitled to an extension of QL-41 in terms of Rule 8A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [the Rules].

Facts

4. The petitioners' claim their rights in respect of QL-41 through one B.Ganganna, the original quarry lease holder, as his legal heirs. Sri. B.Ganganna, since deceased, had applied for a quarry lease for extraction of Grey granite over the land falling in Sy.No.26 of Maddakkanahalli village, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District.

5. Sri B.Ganganna and his son, Sri B.G.Ramadas, were granted a quarry lease over 3-00 acres of land in Sy.No.26 of Maddakkanahalli village, Sira Taluk, and were permitted to carry out mining operations for quarrying grey granite.

6. Certain residents of Maddakkanahalli village filed writ petitions as public interest litigation, contending that there is a village tank in the subject area and that permitting the grantees to carry on mining operations would damage it. They claimed that the mining operations would be hazardous to the members of the public.

7. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 03.12.1992 passed in W.P.Nos.23120/1989 to 23123/1989 C/w W.P.Nos.17260 to 17263/1988 C/w. W.P.No. 7436/1989, accepted the contention that carrying on mining activities in the area surrounding the village tank would damage the tank (lake), and the notification granting the mining lease over the said area was quashed.

8. Aggrieved by the