Disposed

M/s. Sri .Sai Teja Projects Pvt. Ltd, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Jan 2023WP/13599/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the demand for a premium amount of Rs.40,30,000 insisted upon by the 4th respondent for granting a quarry lease. The Court held that the petitioner must comply with the amended Minor Mineral Concession Rules via G.O.Ms.No.65 dated 04.08.2021 and directed the respondents to permit lease execution within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to permit petitioner to execute Quarry Lease subject to complying with all conditions required as per law within two months.

M/s. Sri .Sai Teja Projects Pvt. Ltd, Vs The State… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.13599 of 2022

¶3

M/s. Sri Sai Teja Projects Pvt. Ltd, H.No.599/1, KPHB Colony, Kukatpalli, Hyderabad – 500 072, Telangana State, Rep., By its Managing Director, V.Kutumba Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged 64 years.

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce (Mines – III), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and 3 others.

¶7

…. Respondents

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶10

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for the respondents.

¶11

This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the 4^th respondent dated 30.04.2022 in insisting the petitioner to pay premium amount of Rs.40,30,000/- for the grant of Quarry Lease in favour of the petitioner for Colour Granite for an extent of 3.100 Hectares in Sy.No.52,

¶12

¶13

Pedapadam Village of Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District for a period of twenty (20) years.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2^nd respondent vide proceedings dated 17.09.2021 granted Quarry Lease for Colour Granite (Other Varieties) for an extent of 3.100 Hectares in Sy.No.52, Pedapadam Village of Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District in favour of the petitioner herein for a period of twenty (20) years subject to complying with the conditions as stipulated in the said proceedings dated 17.09.2021. In which majorly, it is to be noted that the grantee/the petitioner shall pay the Dead Rent, Land Assessment, Cess on Land Assessment and the Security Deposit with other requirements to be complied with. Following the same, the 4^th respondent issued another letter to the petitioner dated 08.10.2021 in order to enable the petitioner to execute the Quarry Lease to comply with the conditions mentioned from the condition Nos.1 to 14 in the said letter. In which, it is mentioned that towards the Dead Rent, a sum of Rs.4,03,000/-, for Security Deposit, a sum of Rs.20,15,000/-, for Stamp Duty, a sum of Rs.1,10,500/-, for Land Assessment, a sum of Rs.1,000/-, for Cess on Land Assessment, a sum of Rs.500/-, for payment of Income Tax

¶15

¶16

amount, a sum of Rs.8,060/- and for the Bank Guarantee, a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with other conditions are stipulated therein.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that within the stipulated time, the said conditions of the letter dated 08.10.2021 of the 4^th respondent were complied with except the condition Nos.2, 3 and 11. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the 2^nd respondent seeking extension of time to comply with the other formalities vide its letter dated 11.11.2021. The same was considered by the 2^nd respondent favourably for extension of time vide proceedings dated 12.04.2022, by granting thirty (30) days time to execute the Quarry Lease deed by the petitioner upon compliance of all the requirements as per the earlier proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 17.09.2021 and the proceedings of the 4^th respondent dated 08.10.2021. When the petitioner approached the 4^th respondent to comply with the same within the stipulated time as granted by the 2^nd respondent, surprisingly, the 4^th respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 30.04.2022, insisting upon payment of premium amount of Rs.40,30,000/-, which is not

¶18

¶19

mentioned in the earlier proceedings. Hence aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶20

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government

¶21

Pleader submits that the impugned proceedings are correct and there is no infirmity and it is not contrary to the earlier proceedings of the 2^nd respondent and the 4^th respondent, which are referred as above. The learned Assistant Government Pleader refers to the proceedings of the 4^th respondent letter dated 08.10.2021, wherein under the head of Security Deposit, a sum of Rs.20,15,000/- was mentioned as per G.O.Ms.No.65, Industries & Commerce Department dated 04.08.2021. Hence, he further contended that the petitioner is obligated to comply with all the terms and conditions as per the G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 04.08.2021. Whether it is specifically mentioned or not, the said G.O is binding on the petitioner and the respondents as well and as such the 4^th respondent by virtue of the impugned proceedings insisted upon payment of premium amount as per the above said G.O.

¶22

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, it is to be seen that the G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 04.08.2021 was brought in with various amendments to the Andhra Pradesh

¶23

¶24

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. In which, as per the amendments, at Sl.No.1, sub-clause vii, the rule 12 (5)(a)(ii)

¶25

was amended by adding “Premium amount which is equivalent to ten times annual dead rent, Contribution towards DMF & MERIT and an additional consideration amount and other applicable taxes and cess as specified in these rules in advance. Provided further that the premium amount shall be remitted to 0853-102-81 Head of Account”. 7. Similarly, the learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the above said amendments which are mentioned in the above said G.O, at xii, in rule 14, after the words, “a sum equivalent to”, the following shall be substituted; which is five times annual dead rent. The proviso also says that the existing leaseholders shall deposit a differential sum which is equivalent to five times annual dead rent minus security deposit furnished, within three (03) months from the date of notification of these rules. Failing which, action shall be initiated against the defaulters under these rules by giving the defaulters a reasonable opportunity with further proviso. 8. In view of the same, both the counsels admit that under the G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 04.08.2021 the various

¶26

¶27

amendments have been brought out for the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.

¶28

In the light of the above said G.O, the impugned proceedings of the 4^th respondent dated 30.04.2022 has to be examined. Though the petitioner is ready to comply with all the requirements as per the earlier proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 17.09.2021 and the proceedings of the 4^th respondent dated 08.10.2021, as there are amendments which are governing the field, the petitioner is under an obligation to comply with the same also.

¶29

In view of the same, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to execute the Quarry Lease strictly as per the law subject to complying with all the conditions required, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶30

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶32

_______________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶33

20.01.2023 SCS

M/s. Sri .Sai Teja Projects Pvt. Ltd, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sri .Sai Teja Projects Pvt. Ltd, 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

Alluru Venkata Subba Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Singampalli Siva Rama Krishna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Varanasi Surya Prakash Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Singampalli Siva Rama Krishna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

ChagantiTimmareddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanakapudi Abraham Vs the State of Ap