Dismissed

Kampa Hanoku v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Sept 2024WP/12109/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a quarry licensee against state authorities and individuals for interference in mining operations and forcing lease terms. The court held the dispute is purely civil between private parties and dismissed the petition holding nothing survives for writ adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed of without costs; no order passed as to costs.

Kampa Hanoku Vs the State of Andhra… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 12109 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Kampa Hanoku, S/o. Late Mohan Rao, Aged 52 years, Occ. Business, Rio. D.No.9-6-75/9, Pent House, Anand Residency, 0pp. Sivaji Park, Sivajipalem, Visakhapatnam , Visakhapatnam District - 530 017.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Mines and Geology Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶11

The Deputy Director, Mines and Geology Department, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

¶12

The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department,

¶13

Parvateepuram, Manyam District.

¶14

The District Collector, Manyam District at Parvateepuram.

¶15

The Superintendent of Police, Manyam District at Parvateepuram.

¶16

The Thasildar, Bhamini Mandal, Manyam District.

¶17

Mis. Akshara Brahma Mines and Developments, Rep by its Proprietor, Nimmala Nibram, S/o. Bheemudu, Aged 41 years, R o. Manumakonda Village, Bhamini Mandal, Manyam District.

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

i^t

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India^{isfiledpraying} that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^{therewith,theHigh} Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction^{moreparticularly} '6he in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents particularly the respondents 3 to 6 at^{theinstanceofthe7th} respondent in insisting petitioner to stop excavation^{ofminingonthelandof} 4 hectors covered by Sy.Nos.20, 21, 22/1, 22/2, 23/1,^23/2and23/4 3f Palavalasa Revenue Village in Bhamini Mandal of Manyam^{Districtandyield} to the terms of 7*^ respondent in that regard, as illegal,^{irregular,irrational,} without any authority or sanction of law and violative^{ofArticles14and21of} the Constitution of India and consequently direct the^{respondentsnotto} interfere in any manner with petitioner's possession^{andminingexcavation} over the said Land.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support^{ofthewritpetition,the} High Court may be pleased to receive the counter copies^onrecordby allowing the leave petition in the above write petition.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents particularly respondents 3 to 6 not to interfere with petitioner's^{miningworkontheland} of 4 hectors of land coveted by Sy.Nos.20, 21, 22/1,^{22/2,23/1,23/2and} 23/4 of Palasa Revenue Village in Bhamini Mandal of Manyam District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SIVA SANKARA RAO BORRA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR MINES^ANDGEOLOGY

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 &6: GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: GP FOR HOME

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No. 7: NONE APPEARED

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

APHC010190452022

¶32

IN THE HI(3H COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶33

[3310]

¶34

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶35

MONDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶36

PRESENT

¶37

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶38

WRIT PETITION NO: 12109/2022

¶39

Between:

¶40

Kampa Hanoku ...PETITIONER

¶41

AND

¶42

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶44

1 .SIVA SANKARA RAO BORRA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶45

1 .GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶46

The Court made the following Order:

¶47

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶48

seeking the following relief;

¶49

“ to issue a writ, order or direction more particulariy one in the nature of WRiT OF MANDAMUS deciaring the action of respondents particuiariy the respondents 3 to 6 at the instance of the respondentⁱⁿ insisting petitioner to stop excavation of mining on^the iand of 4 hectors covered by Sy.Nos.20, 21, 22/1, 22/2, 23/1, 23/2 and 23/4 of Paiavaiasa Revenue Village in Bhamini Mandal of Manyam District and yield to the terms of^T'' respondent in that regard as illegal, irregular,. irrational, without any authority or sanction of law and violative^of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and

¶50

¶51

consequently direct the respondents not to interfere^inany manner with petitioners possession and mining excavation over the said Land ”

¶52

Brief facts of the case are that the Director of Mines has allotted mining license in favour of 7^'^ respondent on 25.11.2010 for a period of 20 years vide Lr.No.3699/Q/2010 for which the 6^^ respondent submitted report on classification and availability of land to the 3^^ respondent in respect of 4 hectors of land covered in Survey Nos.20, 21, 22/1,^{22/2,23/1,23/2and23/4} of Palavalasa Revenue Village and before submitting^report, he has inspected the said lands and fixed boundaries. Accordingly, the 7*^ respondent entered into raising and selling additional agreement dated^{01.03.2014withpetitioner} and delivered vacant possession to him and permitted^{himtoexcavatemining} work in the aforesaid land, as per the work order from^{theGovernmentof} Andhra Pradesh, Department of Mines and Geology vide proceedings No.5206561-1/2011, dated 28.02.2014. Accordingly, the^{petitionerpaid} the agreed amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the 7'^ respondent.^{Whiletheagreement} is in force, the 7*'' respondent made illegal demands^{toyieldhistermsby} violating the terms in the said agreement and when^{thepetitionerrefusedto} illegal demands of the 7'^ respondent, the 7*^ respondent^{approachedthe} respondent Nos.3 to 6 and influenced them with a malafide intention to somehow force the petitioner to yield his terms and insisting to stop the execution of mining works. On 13.04.2022, the sub-ordinates of the 5'^

¶53

¶54

respondent called the petitioner to the police station and highhandedly obtained the signatures of the petitioner on blank papers under threat of wrongful detention and delivered such papers to the 7'^ respondent and interfering in the civil disputes. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶55

The respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is further stated^{inthecounteraffidavitthat} a notarized affidavit worth Rs.10/- is made between the 7*'^ respondent and the petitioner regarding transfer of quarry lease for the un-expired portion of the lease period. As the 7^^ respondent is not in a position^{toholdthequarrylease} for some personal problems, he intends to transfer^{hisleasetothepetitioner} as the petitioner is having vast experience in Granite^{businessandthey} mentioned Rs.2,00,000/- for consideration amount towards actual expenditure for development of quarry lease. Thus, the 7*^ respondent^{filedanapplication} in model Form-R before the 3^^^ respondent on 27.05.2014 and requested to transfer his quarry lease to the petitioner. But the^{saidtransferapplication} was not processed and kept pending at application stage.^{Thereafter,the} 7'^ respondent submitted a notarized affidavit worth Rs.50/-^to 3^^ respondent requesting to withdraw his application filed for transfer of quarry lease to the petitioner. As per the request, the transfer application dated 27.05.2014 rejected on 25.02.2023.

¶56

¶57

Heard Mr.Siva Sankar Rao Borra, learned counsel for the petitioner^and Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Ms.P.Sudeepthi, learned Geology appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶58

reiterating the 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while contents urged in the writ petition submits that, the^{yrespondentiodgeda} faise complaint to the respondent Nos.3 to 6 against^{thepetitionerwithfaise} and frivolous allegations. Since then, the respondent^{Nos.3to6areinterfering} in the civii disputes at the instance of the 7 respondent^{withouttherebeing} any authority of law. Therefore, learned counsel requests^{thisCourttopass} appropriate orders.

¶59

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the 3'^^ respondent is no way connected to the illegal^{demandsmadebetween} the petitioner and the respondent. She further submits that the 7*"^ notarized affidavit worth Rs.50/- dated 25.04.2022, respondent vide his withdrawn all the affidavits given to the petitioner^{fortransferofquarrylease} withdrawn and also mentioned that and requested to treat the applications as intends to hold the quarry lease and do quarrying the 7*^ respondent . Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader operations in his own requests this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

¶60

¶61

On hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioner and the respondent are having civil disputes over the aforesaid agreement. Hence, nothing survives in the present writ petition for adjudication under Article 226 of Constitution of India. However, if at all any grievance, the petitioner and the 7*^ respondent are at liberty to settle their claims before the competent Court, in accordance with^law.

¶62

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶63

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

¶64

SD/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

•c SECTIONOFFICER

To,

1 The Principal Secretary to Government, Mines and Geoogy Department, State Of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. Mines and Geology Department, Visakhapatnam

¶69

1. The Deputy Director, Visakhapatnam District.

¶70

1. The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department, Parvateepuram, Manyam District.

¶71

4 The District Collector, Manyam District at Parvateepuram. s’. The Superintendent of Police, Manyam District at^{Parvateepuram.} 6. The Thasildar, Bhamini Mandal, Manyam District. 7 One CC to SRI. SIVA SANKARA RAO BORRA, Advocate [OPUC] s’. Two CCS to GP FOR MINES, AND GEOLOGY, High Court^OfAndhra Pradesh. [OUT] ,. r. ^ u rrM in

¶72

9 Two CCS to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.^[OUT]

¶73

1. Two CCS to GP FOR HOME, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.^[OUT]

¶74

Three CD Copies

csb

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.12109 of 2022

Of and/*;
[« 07APR2D25 a
^ . Current iieciion *5?^

¶82

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Kampa Hanoku v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kampa Hanoku 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

B Ratnamani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jada Gnan Dev, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Chinnamsetti Kiran, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh,15555

Vanga Adi Seshu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Imperial Granites Private Limited, Vs The Director of Mines and Geology

M/s. The Lam Labour Contact Coop. Society Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its