Allowed

M/s. Sri Sai Rocks, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC22 Nov 2010WP/13882/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two writ petitions challenging quarrying operations, the High Court allowed the petitions and set aside impugned orders interfering with the lease. The Court refused to adjudicate jurisdiction or land status at this stage, directed an enquiry, and stayed interference with operations.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions are allowed; impugned orders are set aside; quarry operations may continue pending the enquiry report.

M/s. Sri Sai Rocks, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition Nos.13882 and 24584 of 2010

¶2

Date: 22.11.2010

¶3

W.P.No.13882 of 2010 : Between: M/s. Sri Sai Rocks …Petitioner And The District Collector, Chittoor District and others. … Respondents W.P.No.24584 of 2010 : Between: M/s. Sri Sai Rocks …Petitioner And The Government of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce (Mines-II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶5

Writ Petition Nos.13882 and 24584 of 2010

¶6

COMMON ORDER:

¶7

In these two writ petitions, common questions of law and fact arise for consideration, therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

¶8

2. The facts are not much in dispute. The petitioner-M/s. Sri Sai Rocks, Chittoor, was granted quarry lease in proceedings No.28423/R5-1/2008, dated 5.12.2008, issued by the Director of Mines and Geology, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in an extent of 0.625 Hectares, equivalent to Ac.1-54 cents, in Sy.No.1185/2A/1B2 of Polakala village, Irala Mandal of Chittoor District, which was valid for a period of 20 years. While so, when respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein interfered with its quarrying operations, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13882 of 2010. While admitting the writ petition, this Court in W.P.M.P.No.17471 of 2010, dated 18.6.2010, passed order, which reads as under:

¶9

“In view of the proceedings dated 5.12.2008, there shall be interim direction to the respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere with the mining activities so long as the mining activities of the petitioner over lease land is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease.”

¶10

3. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the 1^st respondent herein issued proceedings in Roc.No.E8/3407/2010, dated

¶11

28.6.2010, stating that the No Objection Certificate was directly granted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Irala Mandal, and forwarded to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Chittoor, without being routed through the Collector, therefore, the quarrying operations may be stayed. In view of the said proceedings, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.19941 of 2010 in W.P.No.13882 of 2010 and this Court, by order dated 7.7.2010, suspended the said proceedings. Thus, the petitioner is continuing the quarry operations as of today.

¶12

4. Further, during the pendency of the above writ petition, it appears, the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, by letter, dated 20.9.2010, directed Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Chittoor, to stop the petitioner from conducting the quarry operations. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.No.24584 of 2010. This Court while admitting the said writ petition, by an order dated 6.10.2010, granted stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the said proceedings.

¶13

5. Now, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed counter affidavit along with vacate stay petition. The implead petitioners-villagers also filed separate counter along with vacate stay petition in both the writ petitions.

¶14

6. At page-3 of the counter filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3, it is stated as follows:

¶15

“…..There are two groups in the locality. One group is against the quarry operations stating that they are using these flat rocky area for thrashing out their harvested crops and the dust raised during the quarry extract operations causes harm to the health of public and to the Mango trees. There is dangers to the houses due to blasting of rock for unearthing the granite. On the other side, the public expressed that there is no harm to the public in any way further some of the locals have gets livelihood by way of coolly and also Gram Panchayat got income through the quarry lease. The lease holder also deposed that there is no any endanger to the

¶16

public safety, Mango trees and houses existing around the proposed lease land, and that they are not using the detonators for breaking the quarry blocks, and that they will adopt new technology of cutting the quarry stones.

¶17

Further there are no pressure to respondents 1 to 3 from higher ups as contended by the petitioner. I submit that the respondents are not interfering with the right of the petitioner to continue the quarry operations in pursuance to the directions of the Hon’ble High Court. Earlier when the representation was received from the villagers, the proceedings were issued on dated 28.6.2010, to stop the quarrying till the consideration of the objections raised by the villagers. It is respectfully submitted that in pursuance to the interim direction granted by the Hon’ble High Court the respondents 1 and 2 have never interfered with the petitioner and the petitioner is continuing his quarry operations and no further action has been taken in pursuance to the directions of the District Collector dated 28.6.2010 and the No Objection Certificate issued by the petitioner is in force as on today.”

¶18

7. From the above, it appears that the Government have no objection whatsoever in allowing the petitioner to continue the quarry operations and it is only because of some objections raised by the villagers, the impugned orders were passed.

¶19

8. So far as W.P.No.24584 of 2010 is concerned, the directions issued in para-8 of Memo No.11292/M.II(1)/2010-1, dated 3.9.2010, issued by the 1^st respondent reads under:

¶20

“Government, after examining the matter, and duly keeping in view the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh as stated in para-5 above, hereby direct the Director of Mines & Geology, to constitute a two member team consisting of senior officer of the department and an official of Mines Safety Department, and the said team is to inspect the subject area and to verify the allegations, and furnish the report within two months to the Government for taking further appropriate action in this regard. Till then the department is to honour and implement the interim orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in this regard. The Director of Mines & Geology is requested to advice the quarry lease holder to take

¶21

utmost care while doing blasting operations to avoid untoward incidents.”

¶22

9. From the above, it is clear that the Government have already appointed a two-member team to enquire into the matter and submit a report and the report is awaited.

¶23

10. Therefore, the arguments advanced by Sri G. Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the implead petitioners/proposed respondents to the effect that the land in question, which is a thrshing floor poramboke, vests in the Gram Panchayat and the Director of Mines and Geology has no authority to sanction the quarry leases against such land without permission of the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the very lease granted on 5.12.2008 is illegal and without jurisdiction, therefore, the very writ petition, like this, is not maintainable. I am afraid, I cannot agree with the submissions made by Sri G.Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the implead petitioners/proposed respondents. It is always open for the implead petitioners/proposed respondents to approach the appropriate authority seeking to conduct a detailed enquiry into the matter as required under law and they may get the lease granted in favour of the petitioner cancelled as per the procedure in vogue. But, this Court cannot decide the issue of jurisdiction or nature of the land or the entries in the Revenue records or the Gram Panchayat records or any resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, at this stage.

¶24

11. Under the above circumstances, both the writ petitions are allowed, setting aside the orders impugned therein. However, liberty is given to the respondents, if they are so advised, to conduct an enquiry into the matter in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, after hearing the petitioner and all other interested parties, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

Till such time, the respondents shall not interfere with the quarry operations of the petitioner. No order as to costs.

¶26

_______________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 22.11.2010. NOTE: Issue C.C. in one week. (B/O) Msr

¶27

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶28

Writ Petition Nos.13882 and 24584 of 2010

¶29

22.11.2010 (Msr)

M/s. Sri Sai Rocks, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sri Sai Rocks, v. The District Collector

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

M/s. Ratna Cable Network Through its proprietor, Vs The Post Master, Peddapalli, H.O

Ch.Madhusudna Rao Vs The Commissioner and Diretor of Settlements

N.T.R.Nagar Phase-Ii Weaker Section Welfare Vs The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

Gayathri Degree College, Peddapally Village, and Vs A.P. State Council for Higher Education, Masab Tank

Dr.Bhagyavati, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Tirupathi Raghunath Vs Tirupathi Shankar