Allowed

Tvv Satyanarayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Nov 2021WP/21322/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a revision order denying a claim for seigniorage fee based on prior government permission. The Court held that the authorities violated natural justice by refusing to verify the applicant's evidence regarding previous proceedings and set aside the impugned order, directing a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned revision order set aside; directive to afford opportunity to adduce evidence within 12 weeks; no coercive measures pending.

Tvv Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO Writ Petition No.21322 of 2021

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

The challenge in this writ petition is the orders in the revision in Memo No.2027/M.I(2)/2019 dated 14.06.2021 passed by 1^st respondent. The petitioner filed said revision petition against the Demand notice No.684/Vg/2018 dated 11.02.2019 issued by 4^th respondent demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.21,10,510/- i.e., normal seigniorage fee of Rs.3,63,273/- plus market value of Rs.12,47,232/- and fine of Rs.5,00,000/- for using 12109.1 cubic metres of gravel for filling the petitioner’s land in S.No.172/2 over an extent of Ac.5.58 cents in Neeladriraopeta Village, Gandepalli Mandal, East Godavari District without having valid transit forms. After enquiry the 1^st respondent vide impugned order dated 14.06.2021 while allowing the revision petition directed the petitioner to pay Rs.12,47,237/- towards market value of the gravel and waived the amount of Rs.3,63,273/- towards normal seigniorage fee and Rs.5,00,000/- towards penalty.

¶4

2. Heard Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology representing the respondents 1 to 6, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing 7^th respondent.

¶5

¶6

3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the order i.e., the proceedings No.D/590/2016 dated 27.06.2016 issued by 7^th respondent clearly depicts the history of the land purchased by the petitioner, wherein the gravel was filled by the petitioner and other copurchasers by obtaining prior permission from the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology. Learned counsel would submit that had the evidence produced by the petitioner and his reply to the show cause notice were considered, the 1^st respondent authorities would have come to a different conclusion, but unfortunately the proceedings of 7^th respondent was not considered on the untenable ground that the same was not produced at the time of submission of the explanation to the show cause notice. Learned counsel would argue that merely because the proceedings of 7^th respondent were not enclosed to the show cause notice, that cannot be a ground to refuse the same by 1^st respondent, inasmuch as the petitioner cannot manipulate the proceedings issued by 7^th respondent. He would submit that the 7^th respondent is a party to the writ petition and he has not disputed about the issuance of the proceedings in D/590/2016 dated 27.06.2016.

¶7

4. Learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology supported

¶8

the impugned revision order and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶9

5. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow?

¶10

¶11

6. Point : I gave my anxious consideration to the impugned order dated 14.06.2021 passed by 1^st respondent in the revision. In Paragraph 4(viii), it was observed by 1^st respondent that the 4^th respondent informed that the applicant has not submitted the proceedings of the R.D.O, Peddapuram vide D/590/2016 dated 27.06.2016 at the time of submission of explanation to the show cause notice. Basing on the said submission of 4^th respondent, 1^st respondent refused to consider the said proceedings and also the argument of the petitioner basing on the aforesaid proceedings.

¶12

7. I am unable to countenance the view expressed by 1^st respondent. As rightly submitted by the petitioner, the 7^th respondent herein has not disputed about the issuance of the proceedings in D/590/2016 dated 27.06.2016 to the petitioner. Merely because the copy of aforesaid proceedings was not enclosed to the show cause notice, 1^st respondent was not justified to take into consideration the aforesaid proceedings. On the other hand, the 1^st respondent ought to have considered the R.D.O’s proceedings and after verifying its genuinity and relevancy in the light of the contentions raised by the petitioner, ought to have passed order. Therefore, in my considered view, the principles of natural justice are a casualty in the impugned order.

¶13

8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned revision order in Memo No.2027/M.I(2)/2019 dated 14.06.2021 passed by 1^st respondent is set aside with a direction to 1^st respondent

¶14

¶15

to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce both oral and documentary evidence and after considering the same, pass an appropriate order in accordance with the governing law and rules expeditiously, but not later than twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such exercise is completed, the respondent authorities shall not take any coercive measures against the petitioner pursuant to the Demand notice dated 11.02.2019 and show cause notice dated 13.07.2018. No costs.

¶16

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶17

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶18

10.11.2021 MVA

¶19

¶20

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶21

Writ Petition No.21322 of 2021

¶22

MVA

¶23

10.11.2021

Tvv Satyanarayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvv Satyanarayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Raghuram Minerals Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Raghuram Minerals Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S Psk Infrastructure and Project Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D. Dhadaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretar

Shaik Riyaz Basha Vs National Medical Commission

Paliboina Vamsi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh