Remanded

M. Balaswamy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC18 Sept 2013WP/25213/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of writ petitions questioning the grant of permissions for sand decasting from private patta lands. Observing evidence of heavy excavation in adjacent rivulets and abuse of rules, the court directed the respondent to reconsider sand policies, conduct similar inspections, issue revised permits based on clear demarcation, and ensure stricter surveillance.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 directed to reconsider sand policy; Respondent No.3 directed to inspect lands, demarcate boundaries, issue revised permits within two months, and ensure surveillance to prevent sand ex

M. Balaswamy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh… — Mining and Natural Resources | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY +W.P.Nos.24881, 24893, 24928 and 25213 of 2013

¶2

% 18-9-2013

¶3

W.P.No.24881/2013

¶4

# Smt. S. Shantha and others .. Petitioners

¶5

Vs.

¶6

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce (Mines-I) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents

¶7

<GIST:

¶8

>HEAD NOTE:

¶9

! Counsel for petitioners : Sri K.S. Murthy ^ Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for

¶10

Mines & Geology

¶11

?CASES REFERRED :

¶12

Nil

¶13

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.Nos.24881, 24893, 24928 and 25213 of 2013 Date : 18-9-2013

¶14

W.P.No.24881/2013

¶15

Between: Smt. S. Shantha and others .. Petitioners

¶16

And

¶17

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce (Mines-I) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents

¶18

Counsel for petitioners : Sri K.S. Murthy Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Mines & Geology

¶19

The Court made the following :

¶20

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶21

As these Writ Petitions involve common issues, they are heard and being disposed of together.

¶22

The petitioners are agriculturists of different villages and different Mandals in Mahabubnagar District. They have approached the District Water Management Agency, Mahabubnagar (DWMA) for grant of permission for decasting of sand due to floods to various streams by the side of which their lands are purportedly located. After receiving the proposals/reports from the Tahsildars of the respective Mandals, the DWMA issued permissions to the petitioners for decasting of sand upto a specified depth for excavating specified quantities in respect of each of the petitioners. The petitioners pleaded that in pursuance of the said permission, they started decasting of sand strictly as

¶23

per the conditions stipulated in the orders granting permission and after obtaining the Mineral Dealer Licences from the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad Region.

¶24

While the matters stood thus, the DWMA issued the impugned proceedings staying decasting operations in private lands till a thorough verification into the allegations of large scale misuse of the decasting permissions is done. It is stated in the said proceeding that through G.O.Ms.No.154, Industries & Commerce (Mines.1) Department, dated 15-11-2012, the Government has issued guidelines on new Sand Policy, 2012; that as per the new guidelines, decasting of sand from patta lands abutting river beds is permitted; that based on the guidelines issued in the said G.O., operational guidelines were issued by the DWMA for decasting of sand in patta lands in the District and communicated to all the Tahsildars, Revenue Divisional officers etc., and that in pursuance of the proposals received from various Tahsildars and Agricultural Officers, decasting of sand in patta lands has been approved and permissions granted. It is further stated that in view of the serious allegations of large scale misuse of decasting permits and adverse news items, a thorough verification is envisaged and till such verification is completed, the excavation of sand in private lands has been stopped. These proceedings are questioned in these Writ Petitions.

¶25

Initially, W.P.No.24881/2013 came up before this Court on 26-8-2013. This Court has prima facie felt that the claim of the petitioners that sand to a depth of 10 ft. got deposited in their lands due to floods to a small rivulet appears to be incredible. Therefore, this Court has called for a report from the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar after inspection of Ac.5-18 in Sy.Nos.216, 226, 227, 228, 232 and 233 of Varne village and Sy.Nos.2, 4 and 5 of Muthyalampally village, Devarakonda Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Respondent Nos.4 and 6 were directed to accompany the learned District Judge to render all the necessary assistance to him. After calling for report from the learned District Judge, Mahabubnagar, in W.P.No.24881/2013, W.P.Nos.24893, 24928 and 25213 of 2013 came to be filed by the persons who are similarly situated to the petitioners in W.P.No.24881/2013 questioning the common order dated 7-6-2013 passed by the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, who is also the Chairman of the DWMA. The learned Judge, before whom the three Writ Petitions were posted, directed the said Writ Petitions to be posted along with W.P.No.24881/2013. The said Writ Petitions were accordingly posted before this Court on the direction of the Honourable the Chief Justice.

¶26

In pursuance of the above mentioned order dated 268-2013 of this Court, the learned Principal District Judge,

¶27

Mahabubnagar, submitted his report. At the request of Sri K.S. Murthy, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, a copy of the said report was directed to be furnished to him. Accordingly, the Registry has furnished a copy of the report of the learned District Judge to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, before the Writ Petitions were heard.

¶28

In his report, the learned District Judge stated that on 31-8-2013, he has proceeded to and inspected the lands at 10.15 A.M. That during his inspection, the Revenue Divisional officer, Narayanapet, the Project Director of the DWMA, the Additional Projector, DWMA, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Mahabubnagar, the Tahsildar, Devarkadra, the Surveyor, office of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Mahabubnagar, the Mandal Surveyor, Devarkadra, the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Mahabubnagar, the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Atmakur and the Agricultural Officer of Devarkadra, were present. He has stated that the boundaries of Muthyalampalli and Varne villages are abutting each other and the lands in question are situated along Uka Chetti Vagu (rivulet). It is further stated that Sy.No2 of Muthyalampally village is not an affected area and there is cultivation in those lands; that there are no boundary stones to any of the other survey numbers and that based on the ridges of the lands, the Tahsildar has

¶29

measured and fixed temporary boundaries of the lands separating the rivulet.

¶30

On the instructions issued by the learned District Judge, Mahabubnagar, the Tahsildar, Devarkadra, has prepared a plan showing the rivulet in blue colour and the affected private lands in pink colour. After thorough inspection, the learned District Judge has observed that in the affected areas of lands where sand deposited is to a depth of 5 to 6 ft., there are no signs of decasting of sand, but there is heavy excavation of sand in the midst of the rivulet abutting Sy.Nos.232 and 233 to the tune of several tons. The learned District Judge also observed that a thorough enquiry and survey are required to ascertain whether the affected areas belong to the petitioners or the same are part of the rivulet, as proper demarcation is not done. The report filed by the learned Principal District Judge, contains the total extents of patta lands and the extents of the affected areas. The said details are as follows:

¶31

Sy.Nos.	Total extent	Affected area due to sand casting
4	Ac.2-03guntas	Ac.0-20guntas
5	Ac.2-23guntas	Ac.0-24guntas
216	Ac.9-22guntas	Ac.0-15guntas
222	Ac.1-14guntas	Ac.0-28guntas
226	Ac.1-12guntas	Ac.0-10guntas
227	Ac.1-15guntas	Ac.0-16guntas

¶32

228	Ac.2-04 guntas	Ac.0-10 guntas
232	Ac.2-03guntas	Ac.0-05guntas
233	Ac.0-23guntas	Ac.0-15guntas

¶33

/A note is appended to the report of the learned District Judge to the effect that Sy.No.2 is not affected as per the certificate given by the Surveyor and attested by the Tahsildar.

¶34

According to the report of the learned District Judge based on the assessment made by the Tahsildar, the total affected area is only Ac.2-35 guntas, while the permission for decasting was given for Ac.5-18 guntas in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioners in W.P.No.24881/2013. As per the report of the learned District Judge, no decasting operations were being carried on even on this affected area. Instead, heavy excavations in the midst of the rivulet abutting Sy.Nos.232 and 233 were found.

¶35

In fairness, Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has not disputed the contents of the report of the learned Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

¶36

The report of the learned District Judge has confirmed the serious doubts expressed by this Court and the bonafides of the claim of the owners of the lands in question. It is worth noticing that before the introduction of Rule 9-L, permits for decasting of sand from patta lands were being granted under Rule 9-M r/w. Rule 9-K of the A.P.

¶37

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, whereunder an elaborate procedure was prescribed, following which the Director of Mines and Geology used to grant temporary permits in favour of the A.P. Mineral Development Corporation for removal of sand for a period of 60 days only and the said Corporation in turn used to collect seignorage fee from pattadars and on receipt of the seignorage fee, way bills were issued to the Corporation for a specified quantity of sand. Thereafter, the pattadars were being handed over dispatch permits by the Corporation and based on such dispatch permits, transport of sand by the pattadars was being permitted.

¶38

Anticipating indiscriminate removal of sand from the river beds in the guise of permission granted for decasting of sand from patta lands, the District Collectors are charged with the duty of laying down operational guidelines for regulation of sand extraction from patta lands from time to time. The operational guidelines which are stated to have been framed by the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, have not been placed before this Court. But, from the findings of fact reported by the learned Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar, this Court has every reason to believe that Rule 9-L is being grossly abused and it is reasonable presume that such abuse is occurring all over the State.

¶39

It is a matter of grave concern that the very purpose of the amendments introduced by the State Government by

¶40

G.O.Ms.No.154, dated 15-11-2012 are frustrated by unscrupulous elements in the guise of sand decasting in patta lands by indulging in indiscriminate sand quarrying in the rivulets and streams causing depletion of water resources. Unless the State Government plugs the loopholes by evolving a foolproof system, I am afraid, the blatant abuse of Rule 9-L may continue unabated. Sooner the remedial steps are taken by the State Government, it is better for the State.

¶41

In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petitions are disposed of in the following terms: (i) Respondent No.1 is directed to re-consider its Policy pertaining to grant of permissions to decast sand from private patta lands and decide whether to do away with grant of permissions or re-frame the rules by plugging all the existing loopholes and undertake stringent measures fixing responsibility on the officials concerned in the event misuse of sand decasting permissions is detected.

¶42

(ii) Respondent No.3 is directed to examine the report of the learned Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar and cause similar inspections in respect of the lands covered by W.P.Nos.24893, 24928 and 25213 of 2013. After such inspection and thorough enquiry, respondent No.3 shall take

¶43

all such measures as are necessary to prevent decasting of sand in the rivulets situated abutting the private patta lands of the petitioners. He shall take measures such as planting cement posts clearly indicating the boundary line between the private lands and the rivulet in question.

¶44

(iii) Respondent No.3 shall ascertain the exact extents of the lands belonging to the petitioners in W.P.Nos.24893, 24928 and 25213 of 2013 and affected by sand casting, as was done in W.P.No.24881/2013 and issue revised permits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this Judgment to the petitioners in all these Writ Petitions after clear demarcation and separation of private lands from the rivulet, only to the extent of the lands which are actually affected by sand casting.

¶45

(iv) Respondent No.3 shall also cause regular surveillance through the officers not below the rank of Tahsildar during the decasting operations by the petitioners and similarly situated pattadars and initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officers concerned, if sand is excavated from rivulets and streams contrary to the permission granted in the guise of decasting permits.

¶46

This Court places on record its appreciation for the efforts made by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar in inspecting the lands and submitting his report.

¶47

As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petitions, WPMP Nos.30679, 30691, 30732 and 31097 of 2013, filed in the respective Writ Petitions for interim reliefs are disposed of as infructuous.

¶48

________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

¶49

Date : 18-9-2013 L.R. copies

¶50

Note: Registry shall communicate a copy of this Judgment to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, for information.

¶51

M. Balaswamy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Balaswamy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal 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

G.Vittal Vs The Secunderabad Cantonment Board,. Court compound

Ellanki Narender Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Vittal, Vs The Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Golla Govindu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal

Josyula Satyanarayana Das Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Narisetti Padma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the District Collector