Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 209 (KAR)

Belgaum Minerals v. State of Karnataka

2016-02-29

RAVI MALIMATH, SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE

body2016
ORDER : This is a writ petition challenging the order No.RB:ML:CR:106:201516 dated December 21, 2015, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi district, holding that the writ petitioner has been unauthorisedly undertaking nonagricultural activities on certain agricultural lands in violation of the provisions of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (‘the said Act’, in short) and, further, claiming payment of conversion charges and penalty under subsection (4) of Section 96 of the said Act read with rule 107A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. Moreover, pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, the writ petitioner has been prevented from undertaking any further activities on the disputed lands. 2. The writ petition is based on the ground that the writ petitioner is not undertaking any activities on the land diverting the lands in question from agricultural purposes to nonagricultural purposes. It is submitted that the activities of the writ petitioner constitute improvement upon the lands for the better cultivation of the lands and for its more convenient use for agricultural purposes. Thus, it is submitted that it was not necessary to seek conversion or to pay conversion charges for the activities specifically undertaken by the writ petitioner. 3. It is submitted that the writ petitioner is involved in removing the rocks and in extracting alluminous laterite from the lands-in-question. The alluminous laterite is a floating ore available just below the top soil. 4. The writ petitioner entered into lease agreements with the farmers. 5. The writ petitioner applied before the Director of Mines and Geology, for requisite permission and for a mining lease. The case of the writ petitioner was highly recommended by the Deputy Commissioner on April 24, 2002, to the Director of Mines and Geology, for grant of mining lease. It is stated in the said communication by the Deputy Commissioner that the lands-in-question have been adjoining the hillock and no growth of crop was possible on them. It was stated that only grasses were grown in the rainy season. 6. It appears from such communication that the land is a rocky hillock and, therefore, not fit for agricultural purposes. The farmers are financially incapable to extract the rocks and the minerals to use the lands for agricultural purposes. 7. In terms of such recommendation, the Government of Karnataka, granted a mining lease in favour of the writ petitioner on December 3, 2003. The farmers are financially incapable to extract the rocks and the minerals to use the lands for agricultural purposes. 7. In terms of such recommendation, the Government of Karnataka, granted a mining lease in favour of the writ petitioner on December 3, 2003. Upon receipt of such requisite permission and clearance, the writ petitioner started removing alluminous laterite from the top soil. The writ petitioner puts back the reclaimed soil making the lands arable and fit for agricultural purposes. 8. Certain photographs are produced before us along with the writ petition. Those photographs clearly show that the lands, which were rocky and unfit for agricultural purposes are now fit for cultivation. Because of the operations undertaken by the writ petitioner, it is suggested that the farmers are now cultivating multiple crops. 9. Our attention is drawn to the report of the Central Tuber Crops Research Institute of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, dated October 27, 2015. The report depicts that the activities undertaken by the writ petitioner made the lands arable and capable of cultivation leading to a large production of sweet potatoes. It is recorded that the reclaimed soil has been utilised to make the lands profitable. 10. The Director of Mines and Geology, also, inspected the lands-in-question. In his letter dated November 27, 2015, there is an admission that the writ petitioner made the lands conducive for better agricultural use, which was earlier almost unfit for agricultural purposes. During the inspection it was revealed that the sweet potatoes are produced in abundance and the farmers are financially benefited by such activities. 11. We are of the considered opinion that the activities of the writ petitioner have not resulted in diversion of the agricultural lands for any other purpose requiring conversion under subsection (2) of Section 95 of the said Act. On the contrary, the activity of the writ petitioner in removing the rocks and the floating ore from the lands-in-question transformed the land, which was unfit for agricultural purposes, to one that is arable and fit for cultivation. The lands are improved for better cultivation and for more convenient use for agricultural purposes. 12. Section 95 of the said Act stipulates that an occupant of the land for the purpose of agriculture is entitled to make any improvement for better cultivation of the land or more convenient use for agricultural purposes. 13. The lands are improved for better cultivation and for more convenient use for agricultural purposes. 12. Section 95 of the said Act stipulates that an occupant of the land for the purpose of agriculture is entitled to make any improvement for better cultivation of the land or more convenient use for agricultural purposes. 13. Our reading of provisions of law is that such activity does not require conversion as it does not constitute diversion of the land from agricultural purposes to nonagricultural purposes as envisaged under subsection (2) of Section 95 of the said Act. 14. Mr.Y.H.Vijay Kumar, learned additional government advocate, invited our attention to Section 79-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Section 79-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, prohibits acquisition of agricultural lands by a non-agriculturist. He submits that there is violation of the provisions of the said Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. We are unable to accept such submission, in view of the activities of the writ petitioner as narrated hereinabove. The land remains agricultural land. 15. In the case in hand, the writ petitioner has not acquired any agricultural land in violation of Section 79A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. There is no conversion of any agricultural land for nonagricultural purposes. The writ petitioner is involved in removing the rocks and the alluminous laterite from the soil, transforming the non-cultivable land arable and capable of agricultural purposes. 16. Our attention is drawn to an unreported decision, by the learned additional government advocate, in Writ Petition Nos.36402 to 36451 of 2015, dated December 2, 2015, (Bagalkot District Limestone and Dolomite Mine Owners Association (R) and others – versus The State of Karnataka and others). He submits, on the strength of such decision, that conversion under the said Act is necessary. The issue involved in the said case was as to whether a distinction could be made between the minor minerals and the major minerals for the purpose of paying conversion charges for diverting agricultural lands for nonagricultural purposes. 17. The case in hand is completely different. By the activities of the writ petitioner, the rocky lands, unfit for agricultural purposes, are converted into arable lands fit for agricultural production enabling the poor farmers to cultivate the land profitably. 18. 17. The case in hand is completely different. By the activities of the writ petitioner, the rocky lands, unfit for agricultural purposes, are converted into arable lands fit for agricultural production enabling the poor farmers to cultivate the land profitably. 18. It is true that the writ petitioner is in the business of extracting ore, but the writ petitioner has performed a laudable task of making the lands arable and fit for agricultural purposes. The farmers are financially incapable to undertake such works. 19. We are of the opinion that mere task of removing the rocks and the floating ore from the soil does not divert the lands to nonagricultural purposes. 20. In the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS versus SHANKARA TEXTILES MILLS LTD. reported in (1995) 1 SCC 295 , while considering the impact of subsection (2) of the Section 95 of the said Act, the Supreme Court of India observed as follows: “The mere fact that at the relevant time, the land was not used for agricultural purpose or purposes subservient thereto as mentioned in Section 2(18) of the Act or that it was used for nonagricultural purpose, assuming it to be so, would not convert the agricultural land into a nonagricultural land for the purposes either of the Revenue Act or of the Act, viz., Karnataka Land Reforms Act. To hold otherwise would defeat the object of both the Acts and would, in particular, render the provisions of Section 95(2) of the Revenue Act, nugatory.” 21. It is clear from the material produced before us that the activities undertaken by the writ petitioner do not divert the lands to nonagricultural purposes. The writ petitioner is involved in improvement upon the land making it arable and capable of cultivation. 22. We, therefore, hold that the activities undertaken by the writ petitioner do not require conversion of the land from agricultural to nonagricultural purposes under subsection (2) of Section 95 of the said Act. 23. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated December 21, 2015, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, asking the writ petitioner to take steps for conversion of the land is set aside. Liberty is granted to the writ petitioner to continue with its operation with a clear understanding to put back the reclaimed soil, after extracting minerals, to make the lands arable and fit for agricultural purposes. 24. Liberty is granted to the writ petitioner to continue with its operation with a clear understanding to put back the reclaimed soil, after extracting minerals, to make the lands arable and fit for agricultural purposes. 24. By the order dated January 7, 2016, the writ petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees sixteen lakh) only, with the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to the result of the writ petition, to enable them to continue with their operations. Since, the writ petition is allowed, the authorities are directed to refund the said sum of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees sixteen lakh) only, to the writ petitioner, if the authorities are satisfied that, after the removal of the rocks and minerals, the writ petitioner has put in the reclaimed soil. 25. We, however, direct the parties to bear their respective costs in the writ petition.