S. Adiseshu Vs The State- Government of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE (MINES-LL) DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, ROOM NO. 102, GROUND FLOOR, BLOCK NO.2, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, ANJANEYA TOWERS, D.NO.7-104, B- BLOCK, 5TH 0TH FLOORS, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA521456.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶16

THE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, JAKRAMA

¶17

2

¶18

NAGAR, DEVUNI CHERU, ONGOLE, ANDHRA PRADESH-523001.

¶19

THE TAHSILDAR, ONGOLE MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶20

GANJI SUDARSHAN RAO, KONANKI VILLAGE, MARTUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶21

GOLI PARVATHI, W/O. VISWANADAM, KONANKI VILLAGE, MARTUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

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 inaction of the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 in not taking steps on the representations of the Petitioners including PGRS Grievance NO.PRA202508259165 dated 25.08.2025, with regard to the illegal mining activities being carried out by Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in agricultural lands adjacent to the Petitioners' lands at Yerazerla Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District, as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional,violative of Section 4(1) and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and Articles 14, 21 and 48A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the official respondents to forthwith stop the illegal mining operations of 6th and 7th Respondents and take all consequential action in accordance with law, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶25

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 interim direction to the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 to forthwith prevent 6th and 7th Respondents or any other third parties claiming under them from carrying out any illegal mining activities in the agricultural lands situated at Yerazerla Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, and pass

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶27

3

¶28

1.YADAVALLI RAMESH

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶31

2.K KOUTILYA

¶32

3.GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE

¶33

4.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶34

The Court made the following:

¶35

4

¶36

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶37

WRIT PETITION No.24627 of 2025

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶40

“to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 in not taking steps on the representations of the Petitioners including PGRS Grievance No.PRA202508259165 dated 25.08.2025 with regard to the illegal mining activities being carried out by Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in agricultural lands adjacent to the Petitioners’ lands at Yerazerla Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional violative of Section 4(1) and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Articles 14, 21 and 48A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the official respondents to forthwith stop the illegal mining operations of 6^th and 7^th Respondents and take all consequential action in accordance with law in the interest of justice and equity and pass such other order or orders…..”

¶41

The case of the petitioners herein is that the petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.73 cents in Sy.No.285 and petitioner No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of the lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.48 cents and

¶42

5

¶43

Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.399-2a-1, 399-3a situated at Yerazerla Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. Further, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are the owners of the land adjacent to the petitioners land, which are in between the lands of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The further case of the petitioners is that ever since from the date of purchase of the lands by respondent Nos. 6 and 7, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have been carrying out illegal mining activities in the lands owned by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7. For which, the petitioners herein informed respondents to restrain from permitting such illegal mining operations since such illegal mining is causing substantial damage to the lands of the petitioners. But the respondents did not take any action. Later, the petitioners herein submitted a representation to the respondent No.3 through PGRS vide Grievance No.PRA202508259165 dated 25.08.2025 requesting the respondent authorities to take necessary action to stop the illegal mining activities. But till date, no action has been initiated by the respondents for the reasons best known to them. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.73 cents in Sy.No.285 and petitioner No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.48 cents and Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.399-2a-1, 399-3a situated at Yerazerla Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. He further submits that the unofficial respondents

¶45

6

¶46

are carrying out illegal mining in respect of the land in Sy.No.404-2 and 4041b respectively of Yerazerla Village, Ongole mandal which is in between the lands of the petitioners and the rest of the land is earmarked as vagu poramboke. While so, the petitioners herein submitted representation through PGRS vide Grievance No.PRA202508259165, dated 25.08.2025 requesting the respondent authorities to take necessary action and to stop the illegal mining activities that are being taken place at the lands belonging to respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Considering the claim of the petitioners vide PGRS complaint, the respondent authorities visited the subject land along with the petitioners and got seized the vehicles therein at the first instance and thereafter pursuant to the subsequent complaint made by the petitioners, the respondents again visited and inspected the subject land along with the petitioners. But, at the second instance, nothing was found regarding men and machinery causing any excavation at the subject land. He further submits that till date, illegal excavation is being carrying out by the unofficial respondents at their subject place.

¶47

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology furnished written instructions dated issued by respondent No.4, wherein, the relevant portion of the said instructions is extracted hereunder:

¶48

“Further at the time of inspection the this department officials were taken the written statement from the petitioner S.Adisheshu’s son Sri S.Venkateswarlu and another petitioner

¶49

7

¶50

Smt.Shaik Kasimbi and as per the statement both are confirmed that, no soil excavation or transportation were done in the lands pertains to them located at Sy.No.285 and 399-2a-1, 399-3a. Further, as per their statement at a distance of approximately 50 meters to the west of Survey No.285, soil is being excavated and transported from the vagu poramboke land and approximately 30 meters distance to the land of Smt.Shaik Kasimbi soil is being excavated and transported from the vagu poramboke land. If the excavation gradually proceeds closer to their field, it leads to land may be damaged and become barren. Therefore, both are request the inspection officials to prevent illegal excavation near our field and to protect our agricultural land. This office informed to Executive Engineer, Irrigation to take action on illegal excavation in vagu poramboke.”

¶51

Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 also furnished written instructions dated 22.09.2025, wherein, it is stated that neither the vehicles using for excavation nor the persons responsible for mining are available. However, the mines and geology officers would be initiated action against the persons involved in excavation. It is further stated that if any excavations are found, stringent actions will be taken against the responsible persons.

¶52

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

¶53

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology and learned

¶54

8

¶55

counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and 7, it is observed that, the claim of the petitioner that illegal excavation is going on in the lands adjacent to the lands of the petitioners. It is further observed that pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioners, at the first instance, the respondents seized the vehicles and machinery involved in illegal excavation. Even after seizure of the vehicles as well as the machinery it seems that some of the miscreants are carrying out at the subject land. As per the instructions of the learned counsel for the respondent No.4, it is observed that pursuant to their inspection along with the petitioners for the 2^nd time, there are no men and machinery causing any excavation. But, it seems that some excavation was already been done and the excavation material was kept at the subject site. It is further admitted by the 4^th respondent that hereafter no illegal excavation can be allowed and if any such excavation is found, action will be initiated as per law. It is an admitted case of both the parties that the subject excavation has been happened at the vagu poramboke which is far away from the land of the petitioners. Admittedly no excavation is causing in respect of the land of the petitioners.

¶56

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of, directing the respondents herein not to allow any illegal excavation in respect of the land situated in Sy.Nos.285 and 399-2a-1, 399-3a of Yerazerla Village, Ongole Mandal, Praksam District hereafter. However, if the respondents still intend to allow

¶57

9

¶58

such excavation, the respondents are responsible for such illegal activity and

¶59

for appropriate action against them as per law.

¶60