ORDER : 1. The petitioners claim that they were granted leases for quarrying building stones in Sy. No.185 of Hangarahalli village and Sy. No.351 of Mundagadore village on different dates during the years 2005 to 2011 and since then they are carrying on the quarrying activities in their respective lands. However, respondents have issued an order on 05.02.2013 directing petitioners to pay arrears of royalty. It is stated in the order that the land bearing Sy. No.185 measuring 602.11 and Sy. No.351 measuring 568.03 acres, which were revenue lands have been transferred to the Forest Department classifying them as ‘C’ and ‘D’ category lands vide Notification No. LND (ii) CR134/78-79 dated 04.03.1982. An affidavit to the said effect has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By virtue of the said Notification, the leases granted in the said survey numbers stood cancelled and lessees were directed to stop quarrying operation and to pay arrears from the date of lease till the date of cancellation. Feeling aggrieved, the said orders are questioned herein. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the year 1991 Circular No. RD 106 LGP 88, Bangalore dated January 3, 1991 has been issued whereby ‘C and D’ lands which were transferred to Forest Department have been retransferred to the Revenue Department and since then they remain as ‘Revenue lands’. Accordingly, petitioners are entitled to carry on the quarrying operations in the said land. 3. Shri.Vikram Huilgol, learned HCGP for the respondents submits that there is an alternative remedy under Rule 53(1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. He seeks for dismissal of the petition on the ground that royalty from the date of lease till the date of cancellation on 05.02.2013 has not been paid. He further submits that 1991 Circular does not clarify with regard to the lease granted in the aforementioned lands. Under these circumstances, it is for the petitioners to prove their rights by approaching the appropriate authority. 4. Heard the learned counsel and learned HCGP for the parties. 5. The lease granted in favour of the petitioners is not in dispute. Leases were granted on various dates from 2005 to 2011. Petitioners carried on the quarrying operations from the date of lease till cancellation on 05.02.2013. Hence, royalty has to be paid for the said period, by the petitioners. 5. The lease granted in favour of the petitioners is not in dispute. Leases were granted on various dates from 2005 to 2011. Petitioners carried on the quarrying operations from the date of lease till cancellation on 05.02.2013. Hence, royalty has to be paid for the said period, by the petitioners. As submitted by the learned HCGP, Survey numbers have not been referred in the Circular dated 17.09.2001. When such being the case, it is not appropriate for this Court to interfere at this stage. 6. When a person has got individual right in respect of a lease, he has an alternative statutory remedy to approach the competent Revisional Authority under Rule 53(1) of the KMMC Rules, 1994 and if it is his case that he is not liable to pay royalty since he has not carried quarrying operations, it is for him to raise all these grounds before the Revisional Authority. Whether Sy. No.185 and Sy. No.351 are included in the Circular dated 3rd January, 1991 or not is also a matter to be decided after hearing respective parties. 7. We may observe that petitioners’ case may have to be considered with regard to factual matrix of retransfer of lands as ‘revenue lands’ pursuant to Government order No. LND (ii) CR 134/78-79 dated 04.03.1982 and Circular No.RD 106 LPG 88 Bengaluru dated 03.01.1991. 8. In the circumstances, we dispose of this appeal with liberty to the petitioners to move the Revisional Authority. If petitioners file revision petition, the Revisional Authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Petitions disposed of.