Petitioner challenges rejection of quarry lease application and grant of lease to another respondent for survey number 871. Court held applications are disposed in order of receipt without amendment to properties.
Writ petitions dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
Writ Petition Nos.11474 of 2021 and 11505 of 2021
COMMON ORDER:
The petitioner is common in both these writ petitions. In W.P.No.11474 of 2021 the petitioner challenges the proceedings vide D.Dis Procd.No.6761/D9/2020, dated 01.06.2021 of the 3rd respondent rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of quarry lease for colour granite for an extent of 5.000 Hectares in Sy.No.871, 872 to 875, 877, 934/29 of Konidena Village, Ballikuruva Mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal and for a consequential direction to set aside the impugned proceedings and for a direction to 3rd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease for aforesaid property.
In W.P.No.11505 of 2021 the petitioner impugnes the order in notice No.6203/D9/2020, dated 02.06.2021 passed by the 3rd respondent accepting the proposals of the Assistant Director of Mines – the 5th respondent in principle to grant quarry lease for colour granite in an extent of Ac.9.15 cents (3.703 Hectares) in Sy.No.871/1 (0.43 Acres), 871/2 (0.74 Acres), 871/3 (0.69 Acres), 871/4 (0.80 Acres), 871/5 (0.79 Acres), 871//6 (0.98 Acres), 871/7 (1.00 Acres), 871/8 (0.77 Acres), 871/9 (0.95 Acres), 871/10 (1.00 Acres) and 871/11 (1.00 Acres) of Konidena Village, Ballikuruva Mandal, Prakasam District in favour of the 8th respondent, as illegal and for consequential direction to set aside the same.
2
2. The factual matrix of the case is thus: The petitioner submitted application on 20.11.2012 to the 5th
respondent for grant of steel gray granite over an extent of 6.000 Hectares in Konidena Village, Ballikuruva Mandal, Prakasam District in Sy.Nos.871, 872 to 875, 877, 934/28 and 934/29 along with sketch showing Sy.Nos.871, 872 to 875, 934/28 and 934/29. In the Statutory Column IX of the application the petitioner clearly mentioned that the applied areas were mentioned in the sketch and the application was acknowledged by the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent sent letters and instructed petitioner to attend inspection to be held on 23.08.2014. On 23.08.2014 vide letter No.CSK/KKP/F./D.No./331/2014 the petitioner informed that he attended office but due to non-availability of the concerned officer, the petitioner could not attend survey and inspection and another opportunity may be given to him to attend survey and inspection.
(a) Further case of the petitioner is that due to clerical mistake, the survey number 871 was not mentioned in the Statutory Column of the application, however, the same was marked and written as Sy.No.871 along with Sy.Nos.872 to 875, 877, 934/28 and 934/29 in the sketch that was prepared. Representations dated 17.12.2014, 20.12.2014 and 21.02.2015 were submitted by the petitioner to 5th respondent to accept and add the survey number 871 as per law. Subsequently, an application was filed before the 5th respondent for grant of quarry lease in Sy No.934/29 for an extent of 5.000 Hectares and the 7th respondent had
3
issued NOC for 2.5 Hectares and the same was forwarded to RDO, DFO and 5th respondent and the District Collector, Ongole.
(b) Thereafter, the 7th respondent in his proceedings Rc.A.33/2015 informed the 5th respondent that in respect of the petitioner’s application for quarry lease, the verification was done in Sy.No.934/28, 934//29, 872 to 875 and 877 of Konidena Village of Ballikurava Mandal on 20.10.2016 and the application was rejected as the said lands are not vacant. In the said letter the respondents deliberately ignored to mention survey number 871 in spite of the numerous representations submitted by the petitioner earlier. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings No.18747/R3-2/2016, dated 07.07.2017, informed the petitioner that his request for quarry lease for an extent of 5.000 hectares in Sy.No.872 to 875 of Konedena Village, Ballikurva Mandal, Prakasam District was rejected. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the revision and same was rejected on the ground that the revision was filed with a delay of 5 months and 15 days. Against the said rejection order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4344/2020 and the same was allowed on 24.02.2020 with a direction to the Revisional Authority to consider the grounds of revision and pass an appropriate order after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner. Subsequently, the Revisional Authority allowed the revision petition and directed the Director of Mines and Geology / 3rd respondent to take necessary action in the matter.
(c) It is submitted by the petitioner that the inclusion of Sy.No.871 in revision and writ petition stood allowed. Subsequently the 5th
4
respondent addressed a letter No.13523/Q/2012, dated 24.08.2020 requiring the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- towards application fee and Rs.75,000/- towards survey charges and petitioner obliged. The NOC was required for the grant of lease. So the petitioner made a representation dated 02.09.2020 to the 5th respondent to issue letter to MRO to get the NOC. On 10.09.2020 the 5th respondent addressed a letter No.13523/Q/2012 to the 7th respondent for issuance of classification, availability and No Objection Certificate in respect of the land over an extent of 5.000 Hectares in Sy.Nos.872 to 875, 877, 934/28 and 934/29 of Konidena Village, Ballikurava Mandal, Prakasam District. The 7th respondent conducted enquiry in Sy.No.871 in an extent of 4.225 hectares and certified that there is no objection to grant quarry lease. On 17.12.2020 the petitioner again made a representation to the 5th respondent that due to clerical mistake, Sy.No.871 was not included in the application but mentioned in the sketch and therefore the said survey number may be accepted and added in the application. Subsequently, W.P.No.21044/2020 was filed by the petitioner questioning the letter No.13523/Q/2012, dated 10.09.2020 sent by the 5th respondent to 7th respondent requesting him to issue classification, availability and NOC in favour of the present writ petitioner for colour granite in an extent of 5.000 hectares in Sy.No.872 to 875, 877, 934/28 and 934/29 of Konidena Village by omitting Sy.No.871 and the Court passed interim orders directing the 5th respondent to consider the request of the petitioner restricting his claim to Sy.No.871. Subsequently, vide letter No.
5
13523/Q/2012, dated 20.02.2021 the 5th respondent intimated that Sy.No.871 would not be considered for the reason that the same was not mentioned in the Model Form-P which is mandatory. In the meanwhile, this Court in Writ Appeal No.85/2021 filed by the 8th respondent was pleased to set aside the order dated 19.01.2021 and remanded the I.A for consideration afresh by impleading the 8th respondent. Subsequently, a show cause notice No.6761/D9/2020, dated 17.03.2021 was issued by the 3rd respondent requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why his application should not be rejected as Sy.No.871 was not mentioned in the Model Form-P which is mandatory. The petitioner submitted reply dated 31.03.2021. Subsequently on 01.06.2021 the 3rd respondent arbitrarily rejected the quarry lease application of the petitioner and thereafter on 02.06.2021 the Director of Mines and Geology granted quarry lease in favour of the 8th respondent. Hence the writ petitions.
3. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed counter opposing the writ petitions contending thus:
(a) The petitioner applied for quarry lease for steel grey granite for an extent of 5.000 hectares in Sy.No.872 to 875, 877, 934/28 and 934/29 of Konidena Village. In the Column No.IX of Statutory Application Form-P Sy.No.871 was not mentioned and hence its inclusion does not arise. The 5th respondent referred the application to 7th respondent to furnish classification and availability of the area. The 7th respondent did not issue NOC. While so, the 5th respondent vide letters dated 26.11.2012, 08.02.2013 and 21.12.2013 requested the petitioner to attend
6
survey and inspections on 27.12.2012, 22.02.2013 and 17.12.2013 respectively but the petitioner failed to attend.
(b) While so, the petitioner submitted representations and informed the change of his address and asked to give one more chance. While so, the 5th respondent vide letter dated 14.07.2014 requesting petitioner to attend survey and inspection on 23.08.2014 but the petitioner failed to attend.
(c) The petitioner, two years after filing of application, has submitted representation dated 17.12.2014 stating that by clerical mistake he could not add Sy.No.871 in the statutory application and requested to add Sy.No.871. The same could not be considered. Further, the petitioner applied for 5.000 hectares in Model Form-P but in the sketch he applied for 8 survey numbers covering an extent of Ac.98.25 cents. Thus the survey numbers and area in the sketch are more than the area applied in Form-P.
(d) Further, the application shall be accompanied by sketch drawn to the scale demarcating the boundaries duly signed by the petitioner and by a qualified surveyor but the petitioner did not submit the sketch drawn by a qualified surveyor with scale demarcating the boundaries. The request of the petitioner to include Sy.No.871 is not justifiable since there is no rule under The Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short “APMMC Rules, 1966”) to add some more property in the application subsequently by changing the entries in the statutory application form. While so, the 7th respondent in his letter dated
7
11.10.2014 submitted report to the 6th respondent stating that there is no objection for grant of quarry lease in Sy.No.934/29 for an extent of 2.50 Hectares of Konidena Village in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the 5th respondent requested the R.D.O, Ongole to fix a date for joint inspection. In the meanwhile on the request of the petitioner, the deposit of dumping waste material by M/s N.V. Exports in Sy.No.934/29(P) was cleared.
(e) While so, the 7th respondent vide letter dated 25.10.2016 informed that after personal verification he found that in Sy.No.934/28, 934/29, 872 to 875 and 877 of Konidena Village there was no vacant land and hence the application of the petitioner was to be rejected.
(f) While denying the petitioner’s contentions that respondent authorities deliberately omitted to mention Sy.No.871 in the application, it is contended that the petitioner did not mention Sy.No.871 at Column No.IX of the statutory application which is mandatory and therefore, his request after two years to include Sy.No.871 is not justifiable as there is no enabling rule in that regard in the APMMC Rules, 1966.
(g) It is further contended that the 5th respondent vide letter No.13523/Q/2012, dated 28.07.2016 addressed to the petitioner and requested to pay the difference of enhanced amounts towards application fee of Rs.5,000/- and deposit of Rs.75,000/- along with scaled map signed by a qualified surveyor. However, the petitioner failed to oblige the same. Hence, the 5th respondent submitted rejection proposals to the 3rd respondent on 28.07.2016. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent vide
8
D.Dis.Prods.No.18747/R3-2/2016, dated 10.03.2017 issued show cause notice to the petitioner as to why his application should not be rejected. However, the notice was returned by the postal department as there was no addressee available in the door number. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent in his proceedings dated 07.07.2017 rejected the quarry lease application of the petitioner. Later the petitioner succeeded in the revision application and Revisional Authority by allowing the revision application. Thereafter, the 5th respondent vide Lr.No.13523/Q/2012, dated 24.08.2020 addressed to the petitioner requesting him to pay difference of application fee and security deposits along with scaled plan duly signed by the qualified surveyor within 15 days. In turn the petitioner vide letter dated 29.08.2020 complied with the requirement. However the petitioner’s case could not be considered for grant of lease in view of the following facts:
9
produced similar sketch on 04.09.2020 i.e., after lapse of 8 years of his original application.
Thus, respondents prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. The 8th respondent filed counter contending thus:
It is contended that the writ petitioner without making any application for quarry lease in Sy.No.871, now seeking quarry lease in respect of the said Survey Number which prayer is not tenable. The petitioner did not submit sketch drawn to the scale demarcating the boundaries duly signed by a qualified surveyor. Hence, on that ground also his application is not maintainable. The petitioner did not choose to attend the survey and inspection as required by the 5th respondent. The petitioner though filed revision against the rejection order dated 07.07.2017, however did not question the inaction of the official respondents in not adding Sy.No.871 to his quarry lease application. On the other hand, the petitioner confined his revision application to the order rejecting his application for lease in Sy.No.872 to 875, 877, 934/28 and 934/29 etc. Even in the grounds of revision also he did not make a mention about the Sy.No.871. Therefore, the revision order cannot be deemed to include Sy.No.871 also. The petitioner instead of submitting detailed sketch for the area applied, in the Form-P, mischievously and deliberately submitted a sketch including the Sy.No.871. Therefore, his application was rightly rejected by the 3rd respondent. The writ petition is not maintainable as there is an alternative and efficacious remedy provided under Rule 35(a) of the APMMC Rules, 1966.
10
5. The petitioner filed rejoinders against the counters filed by the respondents and denied the counter averments.
6. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri N. Ashwani Kumar and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for respondent No.8.
7. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the case of the petitioner to allow both the writ petitions.
When the facts, lengthy pleadings and arguments of either side are concised, the following important facts would emerge for consideration. (a) Admittedly, the writ petitioner submitted application for quarry lease for colour granite for an extent of 5.000 hectares in Sy.No.872 to 875, 877, 934/28 an 934/29 of Konidena Village, Ballikuruva Mandal, Prakasam District. He submitted application under statutory application Form-P wherein he mentioned the above survey numbers but he did not mention Sy.No.871. However, in the sketch he is said to have mentioned the Sy.No.871 also along with the other survey numbers. Subsequently, vide representations dated 17.12.2014, 20.12.2014 and 21.02.2015, the writ petitioner requested respondent No.5 to add Sy.No.871 also to his statutory application as by clerical mistake he failed to mention Sy.No.871 in the application. However, the respondent authorities did not consider his request on the ground that APMMC Rules, 1966 do not contain a provision for amendment of the properties sought for lease.
11
Therefore, right from the beginning the Mines Department did not consider the request of the petitioner in a positive manner.
(b) Be that it may, the 5th respondent requested the 7th respondent to submit a feasibility-cum-NOC in respect of Sy.Nos.872 to 875, 877, 934/28 and 934/29 and the 7th respondent on verification informed though his letter dated 25.10.2016 that those lands were not vacant and therefore, the application can be rejected. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings No.18747/R3-2/2016, dated 07.07.2017, informed the petitioner that his request for quarry lease for an extent of 5.000 hectares in Sy.No.872 to 875, 877, 934/28 and 934/29 of Konidena Village, Ballikurva Mandal, Prakasam District was rejected. It is pertinent to mention that in the said proceedings the 3rd respondent did not refer about the Sy.No.871. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision before the 1st respondent and the same was initially dismissed on the ground that the revision was filed with a delay of 5 months and 15 days. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4344/2020 and the same was allowed on 24.02.2020 with a direction to the revisional authority to consider the grounds of revision and pass appropriate order after affording personal hearing to the petitioner. Subsequently, the revisional authority allowed the revision petition and directed the 3rd respondent to take necessary action in the matter. Therefore, the petitioner’s application was again taken up by the authorities and the same was rejected on the grounds that the petitioner in his statutory application requested for grant of quarry lease in respect of 5.000 hectares only but in the sketch he
12
mentioned about 8 survey numbers covering an extent of Ac.98.25 cents and therefore there is a huge variation between the extents mentioned in the statutory application and sketch appended to it. Further the sketch was not drawn to scale and duly signed by the approved qualified surveyor. In addition to that in the sketch he has shown the Sy.No.871 also which survey number was not mentioned in the statutory application. Thus, the respondent authorities rejected the application of the petitioner once again. In the meanwhile, respondent No.8 applied for lease in respect of the land covered by Sy.No.871 and the same was considered by the 3rd respondent and by his proceedings in Notice No.6203/D9/2020, dated 02.06.2021 on approving the proposals of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, decided in principle to grant quarry lease for colour granite in an extent of Ac.9.15 cents in Sy.No.871/1 (0.43 Acres), 871/2 (0.74 Acres), 871/3 (0.69 Acres), 871/4 (0.80 Acres), 871/5 (0.79 Acres), 871//6 (0.98 Acres), 871/7 (1.00 Acres), 871/8 (0.77 Acres), 871/9 (0.95 Acres), 871/10 (1.00 Acres) and 871/11 (1.00 Acres) of Konidena Village, Ballikuruva Mandal, Prakasam District in favour of the 8th respondent with certain conditions. Therefore, the petitioner filed the W.P.No.11474 of 2021 challenging the dismissal of the petitioner’s application and W.P.No.11505 of 2021 challenging the proceedings dated 02.06.2021 of the 3rd respondent granting lease in favour of the 8th respondent in respect of the land covered by Sy.No.871.
8. I gave my anxious consideration in respect of aforesaid impugned orders dated 01.06.2021 and 02.06.2021 of the 3rd respondent. So far as
13
the application of the petitioner in respect of lands covered by Sy.No.872 to 875, 877, 934/28 and 934/29 of Konidena Village is concerned, the main reasons for rejection of the application is that the 7th respondent who is the Tahsildar of Ballikuruva Mandal vide letter in Rc.No.A.33/2015, dated 25.10.2016 informed the 5th respondent that on his personal verification of the land covered by Sy.No.934/28, 934/29, 872 to 875 and 877 of Konidena Village along with the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Mandal Surveyor and concerned Village Revenue Officer, he found that the said applied area was not having vacant land and therefore, the application has to be rejected. Thus, way back in the year 2016 itself the 7th respondent made it clear that applied area was not lying vacant. In that view the Mining Department could not grant the lease in favour of the petitioner in respect of those lands. Not only that, there were other defects in the application of the petitioner which forced them to reject his application. In his statutory application under Form-P, he applied only for 5.000 hectares, however, in the enclosed sketch he mentioned about 8 survey numbers covering an extent of Ac.98.25 cents which is in excess of the extent mentioned in the statutory application. That apart, the sketch was not certified by a qualified surveyor. The copy of letter dated 25.10.2016 sent by the 7th respondent is filed along with writ material papers. In the said letter the 7th respondent clearly mentioned that the applied area was not having vacant land and recommended for rejection of the petitioner’s application. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner’s application so far as Sy.No.872 to 875, 877, 934/28 and 934/29 is
14
concerned, there is no irregularity or illegality in it. Petitioner also failed to project any illegality or arbitrariness in the said order.
9. Then, coming to Sy.No.871, as already stated supra, the petitioner has not mentioned Sy.No.871 in his statutory application under Form-P. In this regard, a perusal of the Rule-12 of APMMC Rules, 1966 would show that as per Rule 12(5)(a)(1), a quarry lease application for granite shall be submitted in Form-N or P and each application shall be accompanied with a sketch drawn on the scale demarcating the boundaries duly signed by the applicant and by a qualified surveyor and along with a treasury challan for Rs.10,000/- towards non-refundable application fee and deposit of Rs.25,000/- for every hectare or part thereof. Then a perusal of the Model Form-P shows that Column No.IX therein relates to the details of the area in respect of which the quarry lease is required. So in essence, in Column No.IX of Form-P, the applicant has to clearly mention the particulars of the land in respect of which he seeks for quarry lease. In this case, the petitioner admittedly did not mention Sy.No.871 in Column No.IX uner Form-P. However, he claims to have submitted representation dated 17.12.2014 (i.e., two years after submission of application) to include Sy.No.871 in his statutory application.
10. In my considered view, the respondent authorities rightly rejected petitioner’s representation and considered his application only in respect of those lands and survey numbers mentioned in Form-P statutory application. As rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader,
15
there is no enabling provision in APMMC Rules, 1966 for carrying out amendments to the lease application, particularly in respect of the properties sought for lease. It is rightly because each application has to be disposed of by the Director in the order of their receipt. The Rule 12(5)(b) in this regard reads thus:
“(b) The application for grant of P.L. or Q.L. for granite and marble shall be disposed off by the Director in the order of their receipt. Whenever, more than one application is received on the same day, the Director shall grant licence or lease to the deserving applicant on merits to be recorded in writing:
Provided that the Director may grant a P.L. or Q.L. to an applicant whose application is received later, in preference to earlier application with the prior approval of the Government for any special reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided further that where a prospecting licence has been granted in respect of any land the Licensee shall have preferential right for obtaining a quarry lease in respect of that land over any other person in case he has undertaken prospecting operations to establish mineral resources and submitted a prospecting report in respect of such land and submitted quarry lease application within three months after expiry of the prospecting licence period and such right can be exercised only once over the entire prospected area.”
The above provision thus lays-down that applications shall be
disposed of by the Director in the order of their receipt by granting priority in the order of receiving the applications. Suppose, an applicant in his application, not mentioned property “B”, in the next application another applicant applied for property “B”. If amendment of the schedule of the properties is permitted, the 1st applicant may seek to add property “B” in his application by way of amendment and thereby he will get the priority in respect of the property “B” and thereby the next applicant will forego the priority in respect of property “B”. This will cause injustice to the subsequent applicant. In that view, it appears no provision has been provided for amendment of the application to add or delete the properties.
16
Viewing in that angle, the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the request of the petitioner to add Sy.No.871 to his statutory application. Whereas the 8th respondent applied for Sy.No.871 and his application was considered in that regard. Therefore, the petitioner cannot harp that any injustice was caused to him.
11. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders dated 01.06.2021 and 02.06.2021. The writ petitions are not maintainable since the petitioner has no case on merits. As such the argument of the 8th respondent regarding availability of alternative remedy and non-maintainability of writ is not considered. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
09.11.2021 krk
17
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
Writ Petition Nos.11474 of 2021 and 11505 of 2021
09th November, 2021
krk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner could add a survey number omitted in the statutory application form via subsequent representation.
Whether the rejection of an application due to lack of vacant land constitutes arbitrary action.
Whether orders in writ petitions against quarry lease grants are maintainable given alternative remedies.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Collector of Mines and Geology, Ongole
8th Respondent
U.Durga Prasad Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
