- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30364 WP No. 28170 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 28170 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: LANCO INFRATEC LIMITED, CHELUVENAHALLI, N.H.- 4 ROAD, KOLAR - 563 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SUNIL LAKSHMAN NAIK …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V JAVAHAR BABU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, O/O THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR - 563 101 2. SRI.N.G.VASUDEV MOORTHY, S/O.LATE N.GOPAL RAO, AGED: MAJOR, (EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) 3. SMT.VEDA MURTHY W/O.N.G.VASUDEV MOORTHY, AGE: MAJOR, (EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) BOTH ARE RESIDING AT "SHREYAS", TEKAL ROAD, P.C. EXTENSION, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30364 WP No. 28170 of 2013 KOLAR - 563 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1. SMT.ANUSHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.A.MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS. QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DT.26.2.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-C HERETO, AND ORDER DT.12.6.2013 AS PER ANNEXURE-D HERETO AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.MIN.CR.76/2012-13, dated 26.02.2013 passed by the respondent No.1 awarding compensation of Rs.27,500/- per acre to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and it also challenged an order bearing No. MIN.CR.76/2012-13 dated 12.06.2013 directing the petitioner to pay the compensation of Rs.18,88,041/- to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30364 WP No. 28170 of 2013 2. The facts stated in the writ petition reveal that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, being the owners of survey Nos.90/P1, 90/P2, 90/P3 and 145 of Kendhatti Village, Vokkaleri Hobli, Kolar Taluk, filed a petition before the respondent No.1 claiming compensation for the loss of crop due to the dust generated by a stone crusher established by the petitioner at Kendhatti Village, Kolar Taluk. The petitioner filed a statement of objections to the claim petition. The respondent No.1 obtained a report from the Tahsildar and Revenue Inspector, who were of the opinion that the petitioner had paid compensation to the owners of the land lying within 800 meters from the crusher site and that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 whose lands were within 500 meters were also entitled to compensation @ of Rs.20,000/- per acre. The respondent No.1 thus passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.27,500/- per acre for the year 2009, 2010 and 2011 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.1 has no authority in law to determine - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30364 WP No. 28170 of 2013 the compensation payable. He submits that the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.17078/1997 had directed the State Government to constitute an authority for entertainment and adjudication of claims for compensation. He submits that the said authority is not constituted till date and therefore, the respondent No.1 has no power to pass such an order. 4. The petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, who contend that the establishment of the stone crusher by the petitioner at Kendhatti village is not in dispute. It is also contended that there is no dispute that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the owners of the properties bearing survey Nos.90/P1, 90/P2, 90/P3 and 145 of Kendhatti Village. They have relied upon a statement prepared by the concerned authorities giving the details of the lands, the names of the owners and the nature of the crops, which are affected by the stone crushing unit of the petitioner. The names of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are mentioned in the list at serial Nos.73, 76 and 77. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner cannot claim that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not affected by the pollution caused by the stone crushing unit. It is also contended that the respondent No.1 has exercised - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30364 WP No. 28170 of 2013 power pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.17078/1997. It is claimed that the petitioner has paid compensation to similarly placed persons and hence the petitioner cannot challenge the compensation awarded by the respondent No.1. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 reiterated the above contentions. The learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand, submitted that though the authority was not constituted as per the directions of the Division Bench in W.P.No.17078/1997 but under the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011(henceforth referred to as 'the Act of 2011' for short) a committee was constituted for the grant of licence for stone crushing units and the said committee is headed by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district, apart from ex-officio members. He submits that under Section 12(4) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 the authority is entitled to receive complaints from the victims regarding the health hazards caused by stone crushers and decide the amount of compensation to be payable to such victims or their legal - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30364 WP No. 28170 of 2013 representatives. He therefore contends that the respondent No.1 perhaps in exercise of the power under Section 12(4) has passed the impugned order. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 7. The fact that the petitioner had established the stone crushing unit at Kendhatti Village is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had paid compensation to the owners of the lands in Kendhatti who were affected by the stone crushing activity. This therefore means that the dust particles from the stone crushing activity was spread over a large portion of the cultivable lands in Kendhatti village. It is found from the impugned order that the petitioner had compensated the farmers who had lands within 800 meters from the stone crushing unit. Therefore, it cannot lie in the mouth of the petitioner that the activity was not causing any pollution and was not affecting the crops. It appears that some statement was prepared by the local revenue officials, which - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30364 WP No. 28170 of 2013 was enclosed with the statement of objections and the names of the respondent Nos.2 and 3, appeared at serial Nos.73, 76 and 77, which indicate that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have raised Coconut and Ragi in 8 acres of land in survey Nos.90/P1, Paddy in 2 acres of land in survey No.90/P2 and Paddy in a portion of survey No.90/P3. Therefore, in view of the undisputed facts that the activity of the petitioner had caused pollution, the petitioner is bound to pay compensation in view of the "Polluter Pays" Principle. 8. In that view of the matter, though the respondent Nos.1 did not have any authority under any statute to determine the compensation payable, this Court as a sentinel of fundamental rights of the citizens, is bound to protect the interest of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 as they are entitled to lead a life of dignity and to live in an pollution free environment. Consequently, exercising extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, the order passed by the respondent No.1 is upheld. As a result, this writ petition is dismissed. 9. The petitioner is granted two months time to pay the compensation as determined by the respondent No.1. It is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30364 WP No. 28170 of 2013 made clear that this order is not an authority that the respondent No.1 has statutory power to decide claims. The State Law Commission is directed to make appropriate recommendations whether an authority requires to be constituted as directed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.17078/1997 to determine claims of farmers/individuals who are affected by any activity undertaken industries/infrastructural projects etc. 10. Any amount deposited by the petitioner is ordered to be released to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34