Boya Parvathi Vs the State of Ap

Challenging the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 15.03.2024 and consequential proceedings dated 19.04.2024 of the 3^rd respondent granting mining license in favour of the 6^th respondent in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner in an extent of Ac.10.35 cents in Sy. No.1007/13 at Gundlakonda Village, Devarakonda Mandal, Kurnool District, the instant Writ Petition has been filed.

¶22

2

¶23

It is contended that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the

¶24

subject property, which was acquired by her grandfather about 50 years ago. After his demise, her father succeeded to the subject property, and after her father’s demise, the petitioner’s name has been mutated in the revenue records.

¶25

The unofficial 6^th respondent, applied for grant of lease hold rights for quarry lease for colour granite for a period of 20 years in Sy. No.1007, to an extent of 1.000 hectares. It is further stated that in respect of the very same land, a license was earlier granted in favor of one K. Jayanna, the said K.Jayanna however, withdrawn the application. Thereafter it was granted in favour of the 6^th respondent.

¶26

The grievance of the petitioner is that the license granted in favor of the 6^th respondent for mining operations overlaps with the petitioner’s land which is an extent of Ac.10.35 cents. And contends that the, respondents without verifying the land have granted license in favour of unofficial respondent.

¶27

The unofficial respondent filed counter affidavit, stating that the petitioner did not mention about the earlier Writ Petition that was filed by the petitioner in W.P. No.14020 of 2024, wherein this Court modified the earlier interim order and issued directions to the unofficial respondent, which is as follows:

¶28

3

¶29

“ Having regard to the facts, the Status-quo dated 08.07.2024 that is granted by this Court shall also stand modified, to the effect that it shall be confined to residual extent by excluding the 1 hectare of land that is granted to the Unofficial respondent No.5 in Sy. No.1007 vide proceeding dated 24.02.2023, in other words, the said Interim Order dated 08.07.2024 shall not operate against the respondent No.5 insofar as the 1 hectare of land in Sy. No.1007 that is allotted to him for prospecting mining lease to prospect coloured granite is concerned .”

¶30

The learned counsel for the unofficial respondent argues that

¶31

if petitioner has any grievance against the respondents, she should pursue the issue with them and resolve the difficulties in identifying her land. He argues that the petitioner cannot challenge proceedings that have already become final and that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, since the impugned proceedings were existed even at the time of passing of the order by this Court dated 18.10.2024 in the earlier Writ Petition filed by petitioner, and she did not challenge the same in the said Writ Petition. The learned counsel further argues that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the mining lease granted in respect of her land.

¶32

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, contends that after obtaining the NOC from the Mandal Revenue Officer, the license was granted in favor of the unofficial respondent for the entire extent of land

¶33

4

¶34

in Sy. No. 1007 of Gundlakonda Village, which is an extent of Ac. 80.38.

¶35

He further contends that after obtaining statutory clearance from the competent authorities, the license was granted in favor of the unofficial respondent.

¶36

Considered the rival submissions.

¶37

The grievance of the petitioner is that the license that was granted in favor of the unofficial respondent, pertains to a different extent of land. The petitioner claims an extent of Ac. 10.35 cents, while the unofficial respondent claims 1 hectare. This Court, vide order dated 18.10.2024 in W.P. No.14020 of 2024, categorically observed modifying the order of status quo that the order of status quo shall be confined to residual extent after excluding 1 hectare of land granted in favor of the unofficial respondent. It is further made clear that the interim order of status quo in the said case will not apply to 1 hectare land of the petitioner.

¶38

In light of the said order, the petitioner cannot challenge the

¶39

license granted in favor of the unofficial respondents, as the proper procedures were followed. It is not the petitioner’s case that granting the license to the unofficial respondent would cause prejudice to her. Having regard to the same, if the petitioner has any grievance regarding the overlap of lands in Ac.3.35 cents and 1 hectare, she should approach

¶40

5

¶41

the revenue authorities as directed by this Court in W.P. No. 14020 of

¶42

2020 and seek appropriate remedies, to that extent.

¶43