Kadali Satya Murthy S/o Sreeramulu v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Telangana HC13 Jun 2013WP/17524/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, composing a common order for two writ petitions, directed the District Collector to conduct an enquiry into sand quarrying losses suffered by petitioners and determine compensation. Petitioners were instructed to file a representation detailing their loss within three weeks, and the Collector was given three months to pass orders based on a specific Revenue Officer report.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Collector to conduct an enquiry and determine compensation; Petitioners directed to file a detailed representation of loss within three weeks.

Kadali Satya Murthy S/o Sreeramulu Vs The Principal… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.17524 OF 2004 & WRIT PETITION No.20201 OF 2006

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Heard Sri C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondents.

¶5

2. In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners is that respondents had permitted sand quarrying in an extent of Ac.81.00 cents in Sy. Nos.72/1A, 72/2, 73/1A, 73/2, 73/3, 87/1A, 87/2A, 94/1, 154/1, 154/2, 154/3, 159/2, 163/2, 163/4D, 168/1 and 172/4 of Ubalanka Village, Ravulapalem Mandal, East Godavari District which belongs to the petitioners, in 2004 and 2006 and the quarry lease holder took away large quantities of sand from their land.

¶6

3. Although the petitioners filed these writ petitions challenging the auctions to be held for grant of sand quarrying leases in these lands, this Court permitted the auction to go on by an order dt.29.09.2004 in W.P.M.P. No.22957 of 2004 in W.P. No.17524 of 2004 observing:

¶7

“The respondents have got every right to auction the lease hold rights of sand quarry in petitioners’ patta lands situated in various survey numbers. If the petitioners suffer any loss, they are entitled to claim compensation.”

¶8

4. In view of the above order, now the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if they are given some compensation for deprivation of sand from their land.

¶9

5. The 3^rd respondent in W.P No.17524 of 2004 who is the 2^nd respondent in W.P. No.20201 of 2006 has filed a counter affidavit referring to a report Ref.A/495/05, dt.04.01.2007 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ravulapalem, addressed to him wherein it is stated that auctions were conducted in 2006 for sand quarrying and it was done by the sand quarry lease holder in the petitioners’ lands. The copy of the said proceedings is also annexed to the counter affidavit of the 3^rd respondent.

¶10

6. The District Collector, who is the 2^nd respondent in W.P. No.17524 of 2004 and the 3^rd respondent in W.P. No.20201 of 2006 has filed a counter

¶11

affidavit asserting that no patta lands were notified for quarrying. In his counter he has asserted that sand quarrying was being done in the Godavari River Bed in the notified reaches and that the respondents have not notified for grant of quarrying lease the sand in the lands of the petitioners. The attention of the District Collector was probably not drawn to the report dated 04.01.2007 in Ref.A/495/05, dt.04.01.2007 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ravulapalem, referred to above. The Mandal Revenue Officer, had sent the same to the District Panchyat Officer, East Godavari District. This report of Mandal Revenue officer appears to have been given after conducting inspection and after verifying from various sources referred to therein and after conducting an enquiry.

¶12

7. In the light of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ravulapalem dt.04.01.2007, the question which survives for adjudication in the writ petition is whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation in respect of sand quarrying done in their lands for the years prior to 2007. This Court has already observed in its order dt.29.09.2004 in W.P.M.P No.22957 of 2004 in W.P. No.17524 of 2004 that if the petitioners suffer any loss, they can claim compensation.

¶13

8. Therefore, the petitioners shall file a detailed representation within three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the District Collector giving details of the quantum of loss suffered by them on account of removal of sand from their lands. The District Collector, East Godavari District is directed to conduct an enquiry into the matter and determine the compensation, if any payable to the petitioners, for the removal of sand from their lands and pass orders in accordance with law taking into account the report in Ref.A/495/2005 dt.04.01.2007 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ravulapalem. This entire exercise will be completed by the District collector within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

9. With the above observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶15

10. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

¶16

____________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶17

Date:13.06.2013 Knl

Kadali Satya Murthy S/o Sreeramulu v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadali Satya Murthy S/o Sreeramulu v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharati Tele-Ventures Limited Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Bharti Cellular Limited, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

S. Bikshapathi, Vs The Honble Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court

Mokhasa Kalavapudi Primary Agricultural Co-operative Vs Assistant Commissioner of Labour

Annem Anjireddy, Vs The District Cooperative Officer

Kadali Satya Murthy, Vs The Principal Secretary to Government