Disposed

B. Ramanareddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Nov 2024WP/23060/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought writs of mandamus to excavate silt from their agricultural lands in Nellore District. The court noted its earlier interim order directing respondents to consider the representations and, on the respondents' submission that this sufficed, closed the writ petitions as no cause survived.

What the court decided

AI extract

B. Ramanareddy, Vs The State of Andhra… — Mining and Natural Resources | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdictio

¶3

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR'-^

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABL^DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOS: 22267. 230^0 AND 23171 OF 2015

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 22267 of 2015 V'

¶8

Between:

¶9

Y.Satish Reddy, S/o. Shankar Reddy, aged about 52 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. D.No.16/3/1421, Street No.2, Haranadhapuram, Nellore.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep, by its Principle Secret^ Department of Mines & Geology, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Director, Department of Mines & Geology, Government^{of Andhra} Pradesh, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Deputy Director, Department of Mines & Geology, Kor^padu, Guntur.

¶15

The Asst. Director, Department of Mines & Geology,^Nellore.

¶16

¶17

1. The Tahsildar, Sangam Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.,

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{theHighCourtmay} be pleased a Writ or order or direction more particularly^{oneinthenature}

¶20

of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents^No.2to4in not pqjrmitting the petitioner to excavate Silt of^{80362Cbmexistinginthe} land to an extent of 20 Acres in Sy.No.946, Padamatipalem Village, Sangam Mandal, SPSR Nellore District as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner as sought for vide representation dt.06-0^;2015 to excavate Silt existing^intheland.

¶21

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 28720 OF 2015)

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the Respondents to consider the applications^dt.6-2-2015 submitted by the petitioner seeking permission to excavate Silt of 80362 Cbm existing in the land to an extent of 20 Acres in Sy.No.946, PadamatipalemJ^illage, Sangam Mandal, SPSR N'ellore District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. D PANDURANGA REDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR REVENUE ^

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO: 23060 OF 2015 ^

¶27

Between:

¶28

B. Ramanareddy, S/o. B. Narapu Reddy, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. D.No. 16-6-40, Srinivasa Agraharam,^Nellore.

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

¶33

Department of Mines & Geology, Se^tariat, Hyderabad.

¶34

The Director, Department of Mines & Geology, Government^{of Andhra} Pradesh, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad.

¶35

The Deputy Director, Department of Mines & Geology, Kotatapadu Guntur.

¶36

The Asst. Director, Department of Mines & Geology,^Nellore.

¶37

The Tahsildar, Sangam Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶38

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Issue a Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 to 4 in not permitting the petitioner to excavate Silt of 37,140 Cbm existing in the land to an extent of 15 Acres in Sy.No.1304/4, 1306/1 & 2 of Vengareddy Palem Village, Sangam Mandal, SPSR Nellore District as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constittion of India and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner as sought for vide representation dt. 6.7.2015 to excavate Silt existing in the land.

¶39

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 29813 OF 20151

Cbm existing in the land to an extent of 15 Acres in Sy.No. 1304/4^ ^306^^ &. 2 of Vengareddy Palem Village, Sangam Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. D PANDURANGA REDDY

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: GP FOR REVENUE

¶47

WRIT PETITION NO: 23171 OF 2015

¶48

Between:

¶49

K.Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o. K.Mallikarjuna, Aged about 45, Occ;
Agriculture, R/o. Venkatareddy Nagar, Vedayapalem, Nellore.
...Petitioner
AND

¶50

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principle Secretary,
Department of Mines & Geology, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. The Director, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad.
3. The Deputy Director, Department of Mines & Geology, Koratapadu
Guntur.
4. The Asst. Director, Department of Mines & Geology, Nellore.
5. The Tahsildar, Sangam Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.,

¶51

...Respondents

¶52

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more .particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 to 4 in not permitting the petitioner to excavate Silt of 22,904 Cbm existing in the land to an extent of Ac. 2.11 Cents in Sy.No.569 of Padamatipalem Village, Sangam Mandal, SPSR Nellore District as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner as sought for vide representation dt.6-7;^15 to excavate Silt existing^intheland.

¶53

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015rWPMP. NO: 29970 OF 20151

¶54

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the applications dt.6-7-2015_^ submitted by the petitioner seeking permission to excavate Silt of 22,904" Cbm existing in the land to an extent of Ac. 2.11 Cents in Sy.No.56^'of Padamatipalem Village, Sangam Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶55

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. D PANDURANGA REDDY

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4; GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶57

V-

¶58

Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: GP FOR REVENUE

¶59

The Court made the following common order:

¶60

APHC010618162015

¶61

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶62

-1

¶63

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶64

[3310]

¶65

MONDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶66

PRESENT

¶67

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶68

WRIT PETITION NOs: 22267. 23060 AND 23171 OF 2015

¶69

WRIT PETITION NO: 22267 OF 2015

¶70

Between:

¶71

Y.Satish Reddy, S/o. Shankar Reddy, ...PETITIONER

¶72

AND

¶73

The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶74

1.D PANDURANGA REDDY

¶75

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶76

1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)

¶77

The Court made the following:

¶78

COMMON ORDER -

¶79

These Writ Petitions arise out of the same issue and therefore are being disposed of by a common order.

¶80

The main grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents in not permitting the petitioners to excavate Silt existing in the subject land situated in Padamatipalem Village and Vengareddy Palem Village, Sangam Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, inspite of several representations made by them is

¶81

highly illegal and arbitrary and the writ petitions^{cametobefiledtodirectthe} respondents to grant permission to the petitioners as sought for representations to excavate Silt existing in the subject^land.

¶82

Heard Mr. Y. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. P.Sudeepti, learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mines^{andGeologyfor} the respondents.

¶83

On 17.07.2015, this Court passed interim order vide^W.P.M.P.No. 28720 of 2015 in W.P.No.22267 of 2015 directed the respondents 3 and 4 to consider the representations, said to have been made^{bythepetitionersand} pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within^{aperiodofonemonth} from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

¶84

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents categorically submitted that in view of the interim^orderdated 17.07.2015 passed by this Court, no further orders are required^{tobepassedinthiswrit} petition, as this Court directed the respondents to^{considertherepresentations} of the petitioners, which is sufficient to meet the^{endsofjustice.}

¶85

Recording the submissions of both the counsel, this^{Courtfindsthat} in view of interim order passed by this Court, the^{causeinthesewritpetitions} do not survive, hence it is felt that no further orders^{arerequiredtobepassed} in these writ petitions.

¶86

Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are closed. There shall be no order

¶87

as to costs.

¶88

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶89

closed.

¶90

Sd/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to Sri. D Panduranga Reddy Advocate [OPUC]

¶95

TwoCCsto GP for Mines and Geolog^ High Court Of^Andhra

¶96

Pradesh. [OUT]

¶97

Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶98

Three CD Copies

¶99

GSC

¶100

¶101

HIGH COURT DATED:18/11/2024

¶102

COMMON ORDER

¶103

WP.No.22267, 23060 AND 23171 OF 2015

¶104

a: c 2 ?Q25
o^ . Current Section

¶105

CLOSING OF THE WPS

¶106

WITHOUT COSTS

B. Ramanareddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

B. Ramanareddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Madhusudhana Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

A Rajasekhar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kn Koteswara Rao Vs the State of Ap

Sri Seetharama Swamy Temple, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

B Anuradha, Kadapa Dist Vs Prl Secy, Industries & Commerce (M.I) Dept., Guntur Dist & 2

Kusukurthi Radha Krishna, S/o. Subba Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh