Disposed

Bhimineni Anjaneyulu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Nov 2023WP/13532/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging illegal mining in the Atchamma Tank. The Court held that the Gram Panchayat must protect the tank from illegal excavation and ensure no mining occurs without competent authority permission.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the Gram Panchayat shall protect the Atchamma Tank from illegal mining and ensure no mining activity is carried out without permission from the c

Bhimineni Anjaneyulu Vs the State of Andhra… — Environment and Pollution | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.13532 of 2023

¶4

Between:-

¶5

Bhimineni Anjaneyulu and two others.

¶6

…. Petitioners And

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department and seven others.

¶8

…. Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr.Venakeswarlu Kolla

¶10

Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for

¶11

Panchayat Raj Government Pleader for Mines and Geology Government Pleader for Revenue Gajjala Venkata Reddy, Standing Counsel for R.6 Mr. Alapati Rohini Srinivas Murthy for R.8

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, appearing for the 1^st and 6^th respondent, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for the 4^th respondent and Mr. Alapati Rohini

¶14

¶15

Srinivas Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the 8^th respondent.

¶16

This writ Petition is filed inter alia aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents 1 to 4 and 6 in preventing the illegal mining in the tank area (Atchamma Tank) situated in Sy.No.78/A of Latchanna Gudupudi Village in Tdaikonda Mandal, Guntur District as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for consequential directions to prevent the illegal mining in the said tank by the respondents 7 and 8.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the averments made in the affidavit inter alia contends that the subject matter tank is situated in an extent of Ac.10-37 cents in Sy.No.78/A of Latchanna Gudupudi Village and the water in that tank is being utilised by the villagers for different purposes. He submits that on the earlier occasion when attempts were made for illegal mining in the said tank, criminal action was initiated and the illegal activities were stopped. Be that as it may, the 7^th respondent, who is the Sarpanch of the village, in collusion with the Secretary of the 6^th respondent Gram Panchayat, was allowing the illegal mining / excavation of soil from the above mentioned tank,

¶18

¶19

though permissions are required from the Mines and Geology Department. He submits that the Gram Panchayat and its officials, instead of protecting the tank from illegal mining, are acting detriment to the interest of the villagers. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed. Learned counsel also submits that after the interim orders are granted by this Court on 07.07.2023, illegal mining in the subject matter tank was not carried on except for one or two days. He also submits that the application in I.A.No.2 of 2023 is filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the measurements of the mining done in Atchamma Tank.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the 8^th respondent made his submissions with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit. It is his main contention that on the request made by the 5^th respondent that gravel is required for the basement to the houses being constructed under Housing Scheme of Government of Andhra Pradesh at Lam village, transportation of the excavated soil to the Housing Colony at Lam village was undertaken by the 8^th respondent. He submits that in the said circumstances and as the 8^th

¶21

¶22

respondent had transported at the instance of the officials only, the 8^th respondent cannot be found fault with.

¶23

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines

¶24

and Geology appearing for the 4^th respondent made his submissions on the basis of counter affidavit filed by the 4^th respondent.

¶25

This Court has considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and also the respondents and perused the material on record. On appreciation of the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, their grievance appears to be that illegal mining is being carried out in Atchamma Tank and authorities concerned are not taking any steps to prevent such an illegal activity. From the material on record-Ex.P.2, it would appear that in the illegal mining / theft of gravel was subject matter of investigation by the police, charge sheet against the persons, who are indulging in such activities, is filed. However, it appears that such illegal activities are being carried out now and then. Be that as it may, in so far as the present Writ Petition is concerned, as seen from the counter affidavit filed by the 4^th respondent, it would appear that the 8^th respondent had

¶26

¶27

illegally excavated the earth / gravel from the subject matter tank and in that regard a show cause notice dated 29.05.2023 was issued to him calling upon to explain as to why action should not be initiated against him as per Rule 26 (2) of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1966 for the extracted and transported quantity of 534 Cubic Mtrs., of ordinary earth/ gravel over an extent of 267 Sq.Mtrs., in Sy.No.78, 78/1 of Atchamma tank. A reading of the counter affidavit would further go to show that the 8^th respondent had not submitted any documentary evidence nor given any compliance reports pursuant to the said notice, and in those circumstances a demand Notice dated 05.08.2023 was issued to him for payment of Rs.3,03,259/-. These above aspects make it clear that excavation of ordinary earth / gravel was undertaken without the permission of the concerned authorities.

¶28

In so far as the relief sought in the Writ Petition is concerned and with regard to illegal excavation, this Court by an order dated 07.07.2023 directed the respondents 3 to 5 not to allow any illegal mining from the subject matter tank in the absence of permission from the competent authority. The

¶29

¶30

said order, in the considered opinion of this Court, can as well be made final, more particularly, keeping in view that the excavation of soil / gravel is being illegally carried out without obtaining permissions. The Gram Panchayat-6^th respondent, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is required to protect the panchayat tanks etc., and shall not permit any illegal activity. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of providing that the Gram Panchayat shall protect the subject matter tank i.e., Atchamma tank, from illegal mining of soil / gravel and ensure that no mining activity is carried out without permission from the concerned authorities.

¶31

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶32

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶33

_________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J.

¶34

Date:21.11.2023. Ssv

Bhimineni Anjaneyulu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhimineni Anjaneyulu 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

Yelamanchili Sandhya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Shakir Basha, Vs Prl.Secy., Social Welfare dept., State of A.P.

Nannapuneni Venkateswarlu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Marella Venkateswarlu Vs the State of Ap

Sri Kodanda Ramalayam Setti Balija Sankshema Sangam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Koda Polaiah Rao Vs Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank