Disposed

M/s. Lucky Granites, v. The Governmentof a.P., rep.by its Secretary

Telangana HC19 Jul 2007WP/11135/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, a grantee of a mining licence for granite quarrying sought to proceed with operations on land held as service inam. The Forest Department objected, claiming the land is part of a Reserve Forest Block. The Court held that mining over forest land is prohibited without clearance and directed the petitioner to approach the Forest Department for approval.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner restrained from carrying on mining operations until forest clearance is obtained; directed to file an application before the Forest Department within three months.

M/s. Lucky Granites, Vs The Governmentof… — Mining and Natural Resources | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.11135 OF 2007

¶3

Dated : 19.07.2007

¶4

Between :

¶5

M/s Lucky Granites, rep., by its Managing Partner, A.V.Kumar Chowdary S/o A.V.Ragavaiah.

¶6

… PETITIONER

¶7

And:

¶8

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶9

… RESPONDENTS

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.11135 OF 2007

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Petitioner was granted mining licence to quarry granite over an extent of Ac.7.313 guntas of land in Sy.No.51 of Somasila village, Kollapur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, by the Director of Mines and Geology, through proceedings dated 22.08.2006. It is stated that the land was held by one Syed Dawood, as service inam, and after his death, his successors have inherited it. Petitioner claims to have obtained consent of the landowners as well as the Government.

¶14

The grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities of the forest department are objecting for the quarrying operations. It is stated that before the lease was granted in favour of the petitioner, the matter was thoroughly examined, by referring it to the revenue department, and only on being satisfied that the lease can be granted to the petitioner, the proceedings were issued.

¶15

On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter-affidavit as well

¶16

as voluminous record, in the form of material papers, is filed. It is stated that the land in question is part of Somasila Reserve Forest Block, formed in 1355 fasli. It is alleged that though there was some discrepancy in the revenue records, atleast for the past decade, the land is being uniformly shown as forest in the revenue records also.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Forest.

¶18

It is no doubt true that the matter was referred to the revenue department before mining lease was granted in favour of the petitioner, but it has not resolved the controversy. If the land is part of reserve forest, totally different considerations altogether ensue. There is a clear prohibition against mining operations over the forest lands. A separate and detailed procedure is prescribed for grant of leases over forest lands. In case the mining activity is not detrimental to the forest, clearance can be granted by the forest department, by requiring the applicant to provide the land for afforestation and to bear the costs for afforestation, however, it is a different aspect.

¶19

As of now, the petitioner did not approach the forest department with any application and the claim of the forest department cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, the petitioner cannot carry on the mining operations at present. It shall be open to it to file an application before the concerned authority of the forest department to accord approval, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. As and when such an application is filed, it shall be dealt with as per the prescribed procedure, within a period of three months from the date of presentation. Till such time, the petitioner shall not be entitled to carry on the mining operations.

¶20

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

19.07.2007

¶22

M/s. Lucky Granites, v. The Governmentof a.P., rep.by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Lucky Granites, v. The Governmentof a.P., rep.by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhasaradha Goud,, Vs The Superintendent of Proh and Excise

Y. Sateesh Chandra, Vs The Secretary to Government

S. Gyaneshwar Giri, Vs The Apsrtc

K. Sandeep S/o K. Adam Vs The Government of a.P., repby Secrtary (Accomidation)

Smt. S.Swarnalatha, Vs The Prudnetial Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Jerripothula Pushpa Kamala Vs The Sub-Registrar of Assurances ( Stamps and Registration)