Remanded

Sri a.Sita Rama Rao v. The Direction of Mines and Geology

Telangana HC4 Sept 2014WP/15049/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of connected writ and criminal petitions challenging mining lease operations in disputed forest land. The court directed authorities to constitute a committee to inspect the site and determine if the leased area falls within Reserve Forest limits, allowing the petitioner to continue operations pending this report.

What did the court decide?

Direction to constitute a committee to inspect the area and determine if it falls within Reserve Forest; petitioner allowed to proceed pending report.

Sri a.Sita Rama Rao Vs The Direction of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 15049 OF 2010 AND

¶3

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6581 OF 2010

¶4

¶5

DATED 4^TH SEPTEMBER, 2014.

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

A. Seeta Rama Rao

¶8

……..Petitioner in WP & Crl.P.

¶9

And

¶10

The Director of Mines and Geology BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad and ors

¶11

….Respondents in WP

¶12

The Forest Beat Officer, Mutyampet, Malyal Mandal, Karimangar District and ors

¶13

….Respondents in Crl.P.

¶14

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶15

WRIT PETITION No. 15049 OF 2010 AND

¶16

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6581 OF 2010

¶17

¶18

COMMON ORDER:

¶19

These two cases are being disposed of as they involve one and the same subject matter.

¶20

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Respondents 1 and 2.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the

¶22

application made by him to the mining authorities for grant of mining lease for colour granite over an extent of 3.000 hectors in Sy.No.47 of Kachireddipally village of Gangadhar Mandal in Karimangar District on 29.9.2008, the same was processed and the Mandal surveyor after conducting a survey over the said land on 19.11.2008 submitted a report to the fifth respondent, who thereafter issued a No Objection Certificate on 21.10.2008 for grant of mining lease. Pursuant to the NOC issued by the fifth respondent, the first respondent granted mining lease for colour granite in his favour over the said land for a period of 20 years. After a lease deed was executed by the second respondent on 02.02.2009, he (the petitioner) has undertaken quarry operations.

¶23

While so, the fourth respondent visited the quarry site on 26.06.2010 and threatened to seize the machinery and also threatened to arrest the employees of the petitioner stating that the land in question is a forest land. Though employees of the petitioner informed the fourth respondent that a lease was granted by the first and second respondents in favour of the petitioner and the same is valid for a period of 20 years, the third and fourth respondents did not accept the same and relying on a Gazette notification dated 05.07.1972 informed that an extent of Ac.142.00 in Sy.No.47 of Kachireddipalli village in Gangadhara Mandal, Karimangar District is a Reserve Forest and that the land on which mining lease granted to the petitioner falls within the said Reserve Forest. Challenging the said interference by the forest authorities, the present Writ Petition was filed.

¶24

A counter affidavit is filed by the first and second respondents admitting grant of mining lease in favour of the

¶25

petitioner for a period of twenty years commencing from 02.02.2009. It was further stated that they received a report from the Forest Department and the same has been forwarded to the Tahsildar, Gangadhara mandal on 26.6.2010 with a request to furnish a report in the matter and a remainder was also sent on 19.07.2010 for submitting a report.

¶26

A separate counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent stating that on 24.06.2010 the fourth respondent along with the Forest Range Officer, Karimangar of Karimnagar West Division and staff proceeded to Reserve Forest Compartment Number 702/1 of Mutyampet Beat of Kodimial Section of Karimnagar Range and they have noticed illegal quarry for colour granite in Sy.No.47 of Kachireddypally and also machinery erected therein for preparation of granites in the quarry area. It is stated that they surveyed the quarry area with GPS and found that the alleged mining area is in the Reserve Forest of Venkataiahpally Forest Block which was notified under Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act 1967. On enquiry, they came to know that the first respondent has granted the quarry lease for colour granites over an extent of 3.00 hectares in Sy.No.47 of Kachireddipally village in Gangadhara Mandal, Karimangar District in favour of the petitioner for a periodof twenty years commencing from 2.2.2009 to 1.2.2029. Alleging that the petitioners trespassed into the Reserve Forest, established the quarry and were extracting granite stones found in the mining area, the Forest Beat Officer, Muthyampet beat registered an offence in Preliminary Offence Report No.31/260, dated 24.06.2010 against the petitioner and his working manager. It was further stated that the quarry area in Sy.No.47 of Kachireddipally village falls in the Reserve Forest Block of

¶27

Venkataiahpally and the quarry lease was granted by the first respondent without consultation with the Forest officials concerned despite the Government’s clear instructions to the first respondent vide Memo No. 3778/For.I(1)/2001/1, dated 20.4.2001 to issue suitable instructions to the concerned not to issue mining lease in forest areas and also adjacent areas without consulting the concerned Forest Officials. As per G.O.Ms.No. 181, Industries and Commerce (Mines-I) Department, dated 28.05.1998 in respect of area falling in forest, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology would send one set of application to the Divisional Forest Officer concerned on the same day, however, in the instance case, the second respondent neither consulted the Divisional Forest Officer, Karimangar West nor sent the application for grant of quarry lease. It is further stated that the fifth respondent informed the fourth respondent by letter dated 29.06.2010 that Sy.No.47 of Kachireddipally village of Gangadhara Mandal has not been included in the Prohibitory Order Book of his office and it was further stated that necessary proposals would be submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimangar for inclusion of Sy.No.47 of Kachireddipally village in the Prohibitory Order Book Register.

¶28

The learned Counsel for the petitioner drew attention of the Court to pahanies and submitted that the total extent of Sy.No.47 is Ac.160.10 guntas, out of which, Ac.142.00 guntas is declared as Reserve Forest area and the rest of the land is not covered by the Gazette Notification dated 05.07.1972 and it does not fall within the forest area, and mining lease was granted to the petitioner in the said area only. He therefore submitted that the land on which mining lease granted to the

¶29

petitioner does not fall in Ac.142.00 of Sy.47 which is declared as Forest area and it only forms part of the said survey number. Where as it is the case of the third and fourth respondents that the land on which mining lease granted to the petitioner falls within the extent of Ac.142.00 guntas which is declared as Reserve Forest area. But as can be seen from the Pahanies of the year 2007-2008 and 2009-2010, it is clear that the entire extent of Ac.160.10 guntas of land in Sy.No.47 was not declared as forest land.

¶30

Challenging the registering of the forest offence in Preliminary Offence Report No. 31/260, dated 24.06.2010 against the petitioner and his working manager alleging that they trespassed into the Reserve Forest and carrying on quarry operations illegally, Criminal Petition No.6581 of 2010 was filed.

¶31

The subject matter of these two cases involves disputed questions of fact with regard to location of leased out mining area in favour of the petitioner in Sy.No.47 of Kachireddypalli village, however, the same cannot be gone into while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and/or under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶32

In the circumstances, these two cases are disposed of directing Respondents, 2, 3 and 5, i.e. the Assistant Director, Mines & Geology, Karimnagar, the Divisional Forest Officer, Karimangar (West), Karimnagar and the Tahsildar, Gangadhara Mandal, Karimangar respectively to constitute a Committee and after issuing a prior notice to the petitioner, inspect the area with the assistance of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records and identify as to whether the leased out area falls within the Survey No. 47 of Kachireddypalli village in Gangadhar Mandal Karimangar District which was declared as

¶33

Reserve Forest Area in the Gazette notification issued in G.O. Ms.No. 990, Food & Agriculture (For.III) Department, dated 05.07.1972. If the area in dispute falls within the Reserve Forest, necessary action may be taken by Respondents 1 and 2 for cancellation of the lease. Otherwise, Respondents 3 and 4 shall not interfere with the mining activity of the petitioner.

¶34

Further it is made clear that if the mining activity being conducted by the petitioner pursuant to the mining lease granted to him is in the area other than the Reserve Forest, the forest offence in Preliminary Offence Report No.31/260, dated 24.06.2010 booked against the petitioner and his working manager cannot be maintained and further proceedings in regard thereto shall not be taken by Respondents 3 and 4 inasmuch as the continuance or otherwise of the said offence is depending on the out come of the survey/inspection being conducted by the officers of the departments as mentioned supra.

¶35

Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition and Criminal Petitions are disposed of. However, it is needless to mention that since the mining lease granted to the petitioner is not cancelled and the same is in vogue as on today, the petitioner is entitled to carry on the quarry operations in the leased out area only and Respondents 3 and 4 shall not interfere with the same till the report is prepared as aforesaid and if it is adverse to the petitioner.

¶36

As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition and Criminal Petition, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any therein shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶37

----------------------------------------------

¶38

JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶39

Dated 4^TH September, 2014. Msnro

Sri a.Sita Rama Rao v. The Direction of Mines and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a.Sita Rama Rao v. The Direction of Mines and Geology

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

Koduri Goutham Chandra Vs The Rajeev Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies

Peddinti Sangeetha Sravanthi Vs The Rajeev Gandhi University of Knowledge

Kondamagundla Lenin Kumari, Vs The Piduguralla Nagarpanchayat

Smt Kothapalli Rekha Vs The Distirct, Collector

Thummeti Sammi Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

A. Seeta Rama Rao Vs The Forest Beat Officer