Disposed

M/s Krupa Granites v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC26 Apr 2012WP/10955/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging illegal stay orders on quarry operations. Court held that since facts regarding encroachment require a survey report, the stay should not operate against the petitioner if no encroachment is found, but leaves final action on remand to the Government.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed, no order on costs. Government permitted to pass orders based on survey report.

M/s Krupa Granites Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 10955 of 2012

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus, declaring the Memo No.324/M.II (1)/2012-1 dated 10.01.2012 issued by the 1^st respondent, and the consequential Letter No.1157/Q/2011 dated 19.01.2012, issued by the 3^rd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent herein not to interfere with the quarry operations of the petitioner over an extent of 1 hectare in Sy.No.70/1/B of Penugonda Village, Kesamudram Mandal, Warangal District, by issuing necessary dispatch permits.

¶4

Briefly, the facts of the case are:

¶5

The petitioner is a firm. The 2^nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 11.10.2011, granted a quarry lease for black granite over an extent of one hectare in Sy.No.70/1/B of Penugonda Village, Kesamudram Mandal, Warangal District, in favour of the petitioner. A lease deed was executed by the 3^rd respondent, leasing out the above said land through lease deed dated 29.10.2011 for a period of twenty years. The 2^nd respondent also granted two prospective licenses adjacently in favour of the 4^th respondent and M/s Shatabdi Granites Private Limited in Sy.No.519 of Penugonda village in the year 2001, and thereafter the lease was granted by the 2^nd respondent in favour of the 4^th respondent for an extent of 1.9 hectares in Sy.No.519/1, vide proceedings dated 06.04.2004, but however no quarry lease is executed in favour of the 4^th respondent till date. It is stated that there was a dispute between M/s Shatabdi Granites and J. Mahender Reddy with regard to boundary of Sy.No.70 and Sy.No.519, and

¶6

the dispute was contested in this Court, whereupon this Court directed the Regional Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, to demarcate the land between Sy.Nos.70 and 519, and the same was accordingly demarcated. As per Survey report, a part of quarry lease granted in favour of the 4^th respondent was falling in Sy.No.70 which is a patta land, and the 4^th respondent, admitting the fact, requested the 2^nd respondent to reduce the area allotted to it by that extent, or in the alternative, it will purchase the patta land, and accordingly made a representation on 23.09.2004. The 4^th respondent filed a representation 17.12.2011 to the Hon’ble Minister of Mines and Geology, with a covering letter of the 5^th respondent, dated 28.12.2011. The Hon’ble Minister ordered stay of quarry operations of the petitioner till a final decision is taken. Consequently the 1^st respondent issued stay orders vide Memo dated 10.01.2012 and the 3^rd respondent stopped the quarry operations vide letter dated 19.01.2012. The petitioner filed a representation dated 13.02.2012 to the 1^st respondent to vacate the stay granted on 04.01.2012, and requested to reject the representation filed by the 4^th respondent. The petitioner alleges that the 4^th respondent has no locus standi to challenge the quarry lease issued in favour of the petitioner herein, as no quarry lease is executed in favour of the 4^th respondent till date, and further the quarry lease granted in favour of the 4^th respondent is in Sy.No.519, whereas the quarry lease granted in favour of the petitioner is in Sy.No.70, and that the boundaries between the two survey numbers have already been demarcated way back in 2004.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the process of considering the representations made by the petitioner, the Government can simultaneously conduct

¶8

enquiry into the allegations made by the 4^th respondent against the petitioner about the alleged illegal quarry operations in Sy.No.519/1. He also submits that, as long as the petitioner is having the lease in respect of Sy.No.70, the Government ought not to have ordered stay of quarry operations in the said survey number. He further submits that consequent to the lease granted in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner installed his machinery and deputed his men for carrying on quarry operations, but due to the impugned memo of the 1^st respondent and letter of the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner had to stop his work and is suffering irreparable loss, and hence he prays to set aside the Memo No.324/M.II (1)/2012-1 dated 10.01.2012 issued by the 1^st respondent, and the Letter No.1157/Q/2011 dated 19.01.2012, issued by the 3^rd respondent.

¶9

Learned counsel for the 4^th respondent submits that the petitioner is the lease holder of Sy.No.70/1. But, under the guise of conducting quarry operations in Sy.No.70/1, he is encroaching into Sy.No.519/1, which is an adjacent land, and carrying on the quarry operations in Sy.No.519/1.

¶10

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that, consequent to the impugned memo, an enquiry was conducted on 20.04.2011 by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, and the Government may be passing appropriate orders soon.

¶11

There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner was granted quarry lease in Sy.No.70/1, over an extent of one hectare in Sy.No.70/1/B of Penugonda Village, Kesamudram Mandal, Warangal District. However, as per the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, it is given to understand that the Survey Report pursuant to the enquiry conducted by the

¶12

Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, is yet to be submitted and the Government is yet to pass orders in the matter. Therefore, whether the petitioner is actually conducting quarry in Sy.No.70/1 or encroached into Sy.No.519/1 is a question of fact, which cannot be decided by this Court in this writ petition. Hence, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner is actually conducting quarry operations in Sy.No.70/1, and has not encroached into Sy.No.519/1, the Memo No.324/M.II (1)/2012-1 dated 10.01.2012 issued by the 1^st respondent, and the Letter No.1157/Q/2011 dated 19.01.2012, issued by the 3^rd respondent, shall not operate against the petitioner. However, if the Survey Report to be submitted by the authority concerned reveals that the petitioner has encroached into Sy.No.519/1 and carrying out quarry operations in it, then it shall be open to the Government to take necessary action against the petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶13

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. However, this order neither precludes nor does it come in the way of the Government, to consider the representations filed before it by the parties concerned, and pass appropriate orders thereon, keeping in view the totality of circumstances. Consequently, WPMPs, if any, filed along with this writ petition shall stand automatically disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

_________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶15

26^th April, 2012

¶16

KSM

M/s Krupa Granites v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Krupa Granites v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Shiv Kumar Gupta Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Korukonda Krishna, Vs The Government of A.P.

M/s. New Reef Reality and Asset Management Services, Vs The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority

Dasari Mari Rajeswari Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Bairi Yadava Reddy Vs The Warangal Municipal Corporation

Bhoompalli Mahender Reddy Vs The Municipal Commissioner