Disposed

G.Sitaravamma W/o Koteswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC6 Sept 2013WP/24068/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge held that the seizure of sand without notice requires a factual enquiry into the petitioners' ownership and payment of charges. The respondent was directed to investigate and communicate its decision within one month.

What did the court decide?

Ordering the respondent to conduct an enquiry within one month; permit petitioners to produce evidence; if satisfied, release sand; if not satisfied, confiscate with a speaking order; seized sand shal

G.Sitaravamma W/o Koteswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24068 of 2013

¶2

Date: 06.09.2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

G.Sitaravamma and others

¶5

.. Petitioners

¶6

and The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Hyderabad and others Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar Counsel for respondent: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of

¶10

respondent No.3 in seizing and lifting 80 lorries of sand belong to the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary.

¶11

The petitioners pleaded that they have obtained separate permissions from the gram panchayat as well as the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali and Mangalagiri Development Authority for construction of individual/group houses. It is their further case that in connection with the said construction, they have purchased sand from the authorized licensee and that petitioner No.1 stored 40 lorries of sand, petitioner No.2 stored 10 lorries of sand and petitioner No.3 stored 30 lorries of sand near their respective places of proposed construction. While so, on 11.08.2013 respondent No.3 has inspected the places where the sand was stored and lifted the same without issuing notice to the petitioners and assigning any reasons. Questioning this action, the petitioners filed this writ petition.

¶12

Respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that respondent No.3 along with the Deputy Tahsildar and the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Penamaluru inspected Yanamalakuduru Village on 10.08.2013 and found huge amount of sand at six places in the said village, that local enquiries made by them revealed that the sand was illegally stored and nobody came forward with way bills or any documentary evidence claiming sand except one person, by name, Velagapudi Ramalingeswara Rao, S/o Venkaiah, who stated that he has leased out an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in R.S.No.29 to one Velagapudi Kiran, S/o Sambasiva Rao and that he is not aware of the illegal storage of sand in the site and that accordingly, 595 cubic meters of sand was seized under panchanama prepared at 12.00 noon on 11.08.2013 and the said sand was shifted to Seshamamba Ashrmam. The counter-affidavit has also referred to the names of the persons at whose places the alleged illegal storage of sand was

¶13

found. None of the petitioners’ name found place in the said list. The counter-affidavit denied the plea of the petitioners that despite their objections, the sand has been illegally seized and that so far no one has come forward to claim the sand. It is also specifically averred that no construction activity was noticed besides the houses of the petitioners.

¶14

From the respective pleadings of the parties, it is discernable that there is a serious dispute as to whether the sand was stored by the petitioners at their respective construction places and if so, they are covered by proper way bills and other documents showing that the petitioners have purchased and stored the sand for the purpose of construction of their houses. As these are highly disputed questions of fact, it is appropriate that respondent No.3 holds an enquiry after due notice to the petitioners. Respondent No.3 shall permit the petitioners to produce the required evidence to show that they are the owners of the sand and that the sand has suffered seignorage charges. If the petitioners succeed in establishing the above facts, respondent No.3 shall release the sand to the petitioners. Conversely, if respondent No.3 is not satisfied with the evidence that may be produced by the petitioners in the enquiry, he is entitled to confiscate the sand by passing a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioners. Respondent No.3 shall complete this exercise within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till this process is completed, the seized sand shall not be disposed of in any manner.

¶15

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶16

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.29586 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶17

_____________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶18

06^th September, 2013

¶19

GHN

G.Sitaravamma W/o Koteswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sitaravamma W/o Koteswara Rao v. The State 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

T. Lakshminarayana, Vs The District Collector, Nellore, Spsr Nellore district.

M/s.Binjusaria Sponge and Power Private Ltd, Vs Mandal Revenue Officer

K.Munaswamy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Polavarapu Veera Raghava Sarma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.Madhavi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its District Collector

J.Krishnamachari, Vs The State Government of Andhra Pradesh