Disposed

Ramoju Satyavati, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Mar 2021WP/3452/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging inaction regarding mining operations on the petitioner's land. It directed the respondent authorities to consider a pending representation and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 08.12.2020 and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.

Ramoju Satyavati, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.3452 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

¶5

India seeking the following relief:-

¶6

“….to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 3^rd respondent in not preventing the 4^th respondent in conducting mining operations in the lands belongs to the petitioner situated in Sy.No. 72, 74 & 75 to an extent of 7.204 Hec situated at Pappusettipalem Village, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District is illegal, arbitrary and violative of articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to cancel the Mining Lease granted in favour of the 4^th respondent for conducting mining operations in the subject lands.”

¶7

Though, the Writ Petition is filed questioning the mining lease granted in favour of 4^th respondent by the 3^rd respondent vide proceedings No. 522/M/03, dated 03.12.2009.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.32204 of 2011 dated 17.12.2012, wherein it was held as follows :

¶9

“ Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the 4^th respondent with a request to furnish the documents, through which the consent was given in respect of 9 acres of land in various subdivisions of survey Nos. 72 and 74. The 4^th respondent, in turn, shall furnish the same within one week from the date of submission. In case the petitioners finds that any individuals have given consent in respect of the lands owned by them, it shall be open to them to take necessary steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶10

In pursuant of the said directions, the petitioner has made application/ representation to the 3^rd respondent vide his letter

¶11

¶12

dated 30.03.2013 to the 3^rd respondent to cancel the proceedings dated 03.12.2019 issued in favour of 4^th respondent as he has been conducting mining operations in the lands of the petitioners but the authorities have not taken any action so far. Hence, the petitioner made another representation dated 08.12.2020 to the 3^rd respondent regarding illegal mining conducting by the 4^th respondent in the lands of the petitioners. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶13

Though, notice was served on the 4^th respondent unofficial respondent, but he has not chosen to file Vakalath or appear before this Court. Finally the learned counsel for petitioner states that as per directions of this Court in earlier Writ Petition, the petitioners approached the respondent authorities by bringing all the facts. Despite, the respondent authorities has not considered the same. In view of the same, the learned Government Pleader stated that the respondent authorities would consider the representation made by the petitioners within reasonable period if any pending and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶14

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents more particularly 3^rd respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 08.12.2020 in accordance with law as per directions of this Court passed in W.P.No. 32204 of 2011 dated 07.12.2012 and pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioners.

¶15

¶16

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶17

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶18

also stand closed.

¶19

______________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH

Date: 17.03.2021

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.3452 OF 2021

¶25

Date: 17.03.2021

¶26

Ramoju Satyavati, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramoju Satyavati, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Malikkarjuna Reddy,Kurnool Dist,Andanot Vs Commissioner,Proh.Excise,Hyd,and 4

B.v.Subba Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Naseeb Mining Company Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

T Ramachandrappa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Lakshmi Sai Enterprises, Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Batchala Anasuyamma, Vs Sri. Gopala Krishna Dwivedi