Remanded

Bathina Nageswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jul 2026WP/19035/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of a writ petition challenging the inaction of mining authorities in granting a quarry lease. The Court directed respondents to consider the petitioner's 2009 application with reference to the Tahsildar's NOC, comply with specific Government Orders, and decide within three months. No interim injunction was issued.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to consider the petitioner's mining lease application referencing the DKT pattas and G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 26.06.2025, allow opportunity for hearing, and dispose within

Bathina Nageswara Rao Vs The State of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3329]

¶2

APHC010357922026

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 19035/2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

BATHINA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O. CHINA CHANDRAYYA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O. LATCHIREDDIPALEM VILLAGE, ROWTHULAPUDI MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE (MINES-LL) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522237

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.521456

¶13

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANAKAPALLI.531001

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, , NARSIPATNAM, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT.531116

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR KOTAURATIA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT.531085

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 a writ, order or direction more 4 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents 2

¶18

¶19

to 4 in granting mining lease for road metal and building stone in favor of the petitioner by considering his application dt. 18-08-2009, in an extent of Ac. 24.70 Cents (10 Hectares) in Sy. No. 190, P. Kothapalli village, Kotauratia Mandal, Anakapalli District, is illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the Mines and Minerals Act, and consequently direct the respondents to grant the lease in favor of the petitioner in an extent of Ac. 24.70 Cents (10 Hectares) in Sy. No. 190, P. Kothapalli village, Kotauratia Mandal, Anakapalli District, and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

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 leased to direct the respondents 2-4 not to grant the mining lease to the third parties over the subject land to an extent of Ac. 24.70 Cents (10 Hectares) in Sy. No. 190, P. Kothapalli village, Kotauratia Mandal, Anakapalli District, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.P NANILU NAIDU

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

2.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

¶29

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 19035/2026

¶31

ORDER:-

¶32

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India

¶33

seeking the following reliefs:-

¶34

“to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in granting mining lease for road metal and building stone in favor of the petitioner by considering the petitioner’s application dated 18.08.2009, in an extent of Ac.24.70 Cents (10 Hectares) in Sy.No.190, P. Kothapalli Village, Kotauratla Mandal, Anakapalli District, is illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the Mines and Minerals Act, and consequently direct the respondents to grant the lease in favor of the petitioner in an extent of Ac.24.70 Cents (10 Hectares) in Sy.No.190, P. Kothapalli village, Kotauratla Mandal, Anakapalli District and pass such other order or orders….”

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein submitted an application seeking quarry lease for road metal and building metal in Form-B on 18.08.2009 and paid application fee of Rs.1500/-. Even after lapse of one and half decade and even though the petitioner was issued NOC by the Tahsildar on 24.04.2010, till date for one reason or the other the respondents neither granted quarry lease nor rejected the application of the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶37

¶38

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader furnished written instructions issued by respondent No.4, wherein it is stated that the area shown in the plan attached to the application submitted by the petitioner is different from the plan to which NOC was granted by the Tahsildar. Both plans are different from the plan submitted by the petitioner along with the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner did not have any clarity regarding the identification of the subject land in survey No.190. Since the Tahsildar is competent authority for identification of the subject land, the plan submitted by the applicant along with the application should be in accordance with the plan submitted to the Tahsildar. However, the petitioner shall comply other conditions as per the terms of G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 26.06.2025 for payment of difference application fee as well as security deposit as contemplated.

¶39

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to pay whatever amounts to be payable pursuant to the amendments which were taken place pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 26.06.2025.

¶40

Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that without going into the merits of the case the Writ Petition can be disposed of, directing the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to consider the application of the petitioner dated 18.08.2009 with reference to the DKT pattas as mentioned in the NOC issued by the Tahsildar dated 24.04.2010 and in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 26.06.2025 and as per the provisions of the Act, within a period of three(3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. It is

¶41

¶42

further observed that while considering the application of the petitioner, if necessary, the petitioner should be provided with the opportunity of hearing and submission of any other additional documents, if any.

¶43

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall

¶44

be no order as to costs.

¶45

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

¶46

________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

Date:15.07.2026 TPS

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶51

WRIT PETITION NO: 19035/2026

¶52

Date:15.07.2026 TPS

Bathina Nageswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bathina Nageswara Rao 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

Boppana Nandini, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Sateesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Srimati Valluri Suryudu Vs The State of A.P.

Tigiripalli Venkatesh Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Busala Kesava Rao Vs the Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited (Apepdcl)

Derangula Daniyelu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh