Onteru Eswaramma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

[3458]

¶2

APHC010121372025

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 6528/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

ONTERU ESWARAMMA,, W/O. MOHAN RAO, AGE 51 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 4-106, VEGENDIA VILLAGE, CHEBROLU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶10

VELPULA PADMA,, W/O. PEDA NAGARAJU, AGE 48 YEARS, R/O. 8- 178, YADAVA PALEM, VENIGENDIA VILLAGE, PEDDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶11

VELPULA SRAVANI,, W/O. JOHN VESLI, AGE 28 YEARS, R/O. 8-178, VENIGENDIA VILLAGE, PEDDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶12

VELPULA SIVA GOPI,, S/O. PEDA NAGARAJU, AGE 48 YEARS, R/O. 8-178, YADAVA PALEM, VENIGENDIA VILLAGE, PEDDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

CHAVALI BALA GOPI,, S/O. LATE RATTAIAH, AGE 29 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 2- 95, SOWPADU VILLAGE, VATTICHERUKURU MANDAL,GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

CHAVALI KAMALAMMA@KAVALAMMA, W/O. BHAVANNARAYANA, AGED 78 YEARS R/O. D.NO. 1-114, SOWPADU VILLAGE, VATTICHERUKURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

...PETITIONER(S)

¶16

AND

¶17

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,

¶19

2

¶20

IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

¶21

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, RVS, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶22

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, MINES AND GEOLOGY, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶23

THE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶24

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶25

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶26

THE TAHASILDAR, MEDIKONDURU, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶27

PALUKURI VENKATESWARLU, S/O. SAMBASIVA RAO, AGE 55 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 1-95, NEAR VARADARAJA SWAMY TEMPLE, PERECHERLA VILLAGE, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL,GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶28

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶29

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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent granting quarry lease through proceedings Proc.No.2056/Q/2022 dated 21.08.2024 and its consequential Procs.No.2056/Q/2022 dated 26.9.2024 in favour of the 9th respondents without verifying the documents and without conducting the proper enquiry and without proper survey as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the which is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to A P Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966.and consequently set aside the same and pas

¶30

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶31

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 may be pleased to suspend the quarry lease issued by the 5th respondent through proceedings Proc.No.2056/Q/2022 dated 21.08.2024 and its consequential Procs.No.2056/Q/2022 dated 26.9.2024 in favour of the 9th respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶32

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶33

3

¶34

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 pleased to grant leave to the Respondent No. 8 in the Writ Petition No.6528 of 2025 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶36

1.MARELLA RADHA

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶38

1. GP FOR REVENUE

¶39

2. DODDALA PRUDHVI TEJA

¶40

3. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶41

APHC010121382025

¶42

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶43

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶44

[3458]

¶45

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶46

PRESENT

¶47

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶48

WRIT PETITION NO: 6712/2025

¶49

Between:

¶50

ONTERU ESWARAMMA, W/O. MOHAN RAO, AGE 51 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 4-106, VEGENDIA VILLAGE, CHEBROLU MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶51

VELPULA PADMA,, W/O. PEDA NAGARAJU, AGE 48 YEARS, R/O. 8- 178, YADAVA PALEM, VENIGENDIA VILLAGE PEDDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶52

VELPULA SRAVANI,, W/O. JOHN VESLI, AGE 28 YEARS, R/O. 8-178, VENIGENDIA VILLAGE, PEDDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶53

VELPULA SIVA GOPI,, S/O. PEDA NAGARAJU, AGE 48 YEARS, R/O. 8-178, YADAVA PALEM, VENIGENDIA VILLAGE PEDDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶54

CHAVALI BALA GOPI,, S/O. LATE RATTAIAH, AGE 29 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 2- 95, SOWPADU VILLAGE, VATTICHERUKURU

¶55

4

¶56

MANDAL,GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶57

CHAVALI KAMALAMMA@KAVALAMMA, W/O. BHAVANNARAYANA, AGED 78 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 1-114, SOWPADU VILLAGE, VATTICHERUKURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶58

...PETITIONER(S)

¶59

AND

¶60

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶61

THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

¶62

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, RVS, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶63

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, MINES AND GEOLOGY, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶64

THE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶65

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶66

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶67

THE TAHASILDAR, MEDIKONDURU, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶68

PALUKURI RAMAKRISHNA RAO, S/O. SAMBASIVA RAO, AGE 48YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 1-95, NEAR VARADARAJA SWAMY TEMPLE, PERECHERLA VILLAGE, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL,GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶69

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶70

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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent granting quarry lease through proceedings Proc.No.2025/Q/2022 dated 21.08.2024 and its consequential Procs.No.2055/Q/2022 dated 18.11.2024 in favour of the 9th respondents without verifying the documents and without conducting the proper enquiry and without proper survey as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of

¶71

5

¶72

the which is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to A P Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966. and consequently set aside the same and pass

¶73

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶74

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 pleased to suspend the quarry lease issued by the 5th respondent through proceedings Proc.No.2025/Q/2022 dated 21.08.2024 and its consequential Procs.No.2055/Q/2022 dated 18.11.2024 in favour of the 9th respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶75

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶76

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 may be pleased to grant leave to grante leave to the the respondent No.8 in the Writ Petition No.6712 of 2025 to file counter affidavit in the above writ petition and pass

¶77

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶78

1.MARELLA RADHA

¶79

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶80

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶81

2.DODDALA PRUDHVI TEJA

¶82

3.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶83

The Court made the following:

¶84

COMMON ORDER:-

¶85

Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel appearing for Ms. Marella

¶86

Radha, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, Sri M.R.K.Chakaravarthy, learned counsel for the 9^th respondent (in W.P.No.6528 of 2025).

¶87

The instant writ petitions are filed by the petitioners, challenging the proceedings of the 5^th respondent granting quarry lease in favour of the 9^th respondent.

¶88

6

¶89

It is contended that the 6^th petitioner has inherited the subject property from her stepsister.

¶90

The brief facts of the case, as per the writ petitioners, are:

¶91

In a family partition, the petitioner's father, Palakuri Punnaiah,

¶92

was allotted an extent of 9 Acres in Sy.No.473 of Perecherla Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District. His brother, Sri Palakuri Venkateswarlu, and his sister also received equal shares. Petitioner’s father had two wives. Through his first wife, Kanthamma, he had two daughters, Yerrakula Ramulamma and Annapurna; through his second wife, Thirupathamma, he had one daughter, Kamalamma. He had gifted the said property in favour of his eldest daughter, Yerrakula Ramulamma, through his first wife, through a registered gift deed dated 21.08.1971. Yerrakula Ramulamma sold an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in favour of third parties and an extent of Ac.0.26 cents in favour of third parties. Ramulamma died intestate, and the 6^th petitioner, claiming to be the sole surviving heir of her sister, Yerrakula Ramulamma, approached the revenue authorities seeking mutation of her name in the revenue records. On 04.02.2024, the revenue authorities have passed orders, mutating the name of the 6^th petitioner in the revenue records. It is contended that she subsequently gifted the subject properties to her daughters and grandchildren.

¶93

On coming to know that the 9^th respondent had been carrying out quarrying operations on the subject land, the petitioners obtained information under the RTI Act and came to know of the subject mining lease granted in

¶94

7

¶95

favour of the 9^th respondent over an extent of Ac.1.00 cents. The said mining lease was alleged to have been granted based on an NOC issued by the 8^th respondent. It is alleged that the 9^th respondent and his brother, under the guise of conducting quarrying in their respective lands, are quarrying in the petitioner's lands. It is further stated that they have laid claim before the revenue authorities in respect of the petitioners' lands and that they have also filed a Civil Suit.

¶96

The 9^th respondent filed a counter-affidavit. The facts regarding the family partition between the family members of Palukuri Punnaiah and the transfer by way of gift of the entire extent of Ac.9.00 cents in favour of Yerrakula Ramulamma, the eldest daughter of Punnaiah, are not in dispute. It is stated that Ramulamma, during her lifetime, had sold away the land through different sale deeds between 1986 and 1992 and was issued a pattadar pass book for the remaining extent of Ac.6.62 cents out of which an extent of Ac.3.00 cents was sold in favour of one Dandamudi Venkata Rathaiah under

¶97

Registered Sale Deed No.3883 of 1998 and Ac.1.00 cents in favour of M/s Sri Sainath Stone Crushers, 9^th respondent herein is one of its partners and an extent of Ac.0.26 cents was sold separately in 2006. She died in 2008.

¶98

The learned Senior Counsel Sri K.S.Murthy appearing for Smt. Marella Radha, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the 6^th petitioner is the sole surviving legal heir of the late Yerrakula Ramulamma and she has succeeded to the property. However, the unofficial respondents

¶99

8

¶100

have obtained the quarry lease without valid title to the property. Under the guise of the mineral quarry lease, are excavating the land of the petitioners.

¶101

The learned counsel for the 9^th respondent argues that Yerrakula Ramulamma did not have any property by the date of her death. She had sold the entire property, leaving an extent of Ac.1.26 cents for road purposes. It is further stated that after the purchase in 1999, the 9^th respondent, along with Palukuri Venkateswarlu and another, established a crusher unit in 2018, applied for excavation of gravel, and thereafter sought a quarry lease for road metal and gravel in the subject land. After taking no objection from the Revenue and Forest Department, the quarry lease was granted in their favour. The 8^th respondent granted permission for gravel and road metal in 2023. It is further stated that the petitioners have no right to claim any share in the properties belonging to late Yerrakula Ramulamma. It is further argued that the registered gift deeds executed by the 6^th petitioner are stated as if they are her property, derived from her maternal family as pasupukunkuma, whereas in the writ petition, she is claiming through inheritance.

¶102

Considered the rival submissions.

¶103

From the material, it appears that the dispute between the petitioners and unofficial respondent is in the nature of claiming title to the subject property. The writ petitioners are claiming through inheritance-intestate succession from late Yerrakula Ramulamma, and the unofficial respondents claim through the registered sale deeds executed by late Yerrakula Ramulamma. It also appears that a Civil Suit is pending between the parties.

¶104

9

¶105

This Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not adjudicate title disputes which essentially requires long drawn process of appreciation of evidence and recording a finding of fact, regarding title and possession of the respective parties. In the said context it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) by Lrs. and Another Vs. B.D.Agarwal & Others¹ , wherein it is observed as under:

¶106

“28. A writ petition is filed in public law remedy. The High Court while exercising a power of judicial review is concerned with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety of an order passed by the State or a statutory authority. Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for resolution of a private law dispute as contradistinguished from a dispute involving public law character. It is also well settled that a writ remedy is not available for resolution of a property or a title dispute……”

¶107

It is further relevant to note that the 6^th petitioner has submitted her objections to the Tahsildar vide representation dated 07.10.2022. The same were considered and rejected as not sustainable, vide two separate proceedings issued in the case of both unofficial respondents in both the writ petitions. None of the proceedings of the Tahsildar rejecting objections filed by the petitioner and granting no objection in favour of the unofficial respondents were challenged by the petitioner at any point in time.

¶108

Reliance of the petitioner on the subsequent proceedings of the Tahsildar, dated 13.02.2025, recommending that the NOC granted in favour of the unofficial respondent be kept in abeyance, it is to be observed that as

¶109

1 (2003) 6 SCC 230

¶110

10

¶111

noted in the said proceedings, appear to indicate that the abeyance order was passed based on the same material that was placed before him while issuing the proceedings of NOC. No new material has been placed before the Tahsildar in support of their plea to keep earlier proceedings in abeyance.

¶112

Since a series of applications were being filed by the petitioners and the 9^th respondent, the Tahsildar, probably, requested the Mines Department to keep the NOC in abeyance and advised the parties to approach the competent Civil Court. The functions of the Tahsildar in granting NOCs for mining leases are quasi-judicial. Given the same, under the guise of taking action on application/objection of the petitioners filed for the second or third time, which are same as that of their earlier objections filed during the initial proceedings for granting NOC, the Tahsildar cannot keep his order under abeyance; at best, it can only be set aside or revised by an appropriate appellate authority, if some body seeks for such relief for sufficient reasons and on the basis of sufficient material. Further, it is stated that the same has been passed without notice to the 9^th respondent. Based on those proceedings of the Tahsildar, keeping the “NOC” in abeyance, the petitioners cannot seek cancellation of the mining lease granted in favour of the unofficial respondent.

¶113