Writ petition challenging a quarry lease granted on agricultural land was dismissed because the petitioner failed to implead the lessee and had an alternative remedy pending before the Government.
The writ petition was closed; pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 9608 OF 2008
DATED 3rd December, 2014.
BETWEEN
M.Prasad
….Petitioner
And
The Director of Mines and Geology, Government of AP, Department of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad and ors.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 9608 OF 2008
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
The petitioner states that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District assigned an extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.246/12 situated in Devalampeta village vide DKT patta No.731/14/D dated 29.06.2001 in his favour. Thereafter he dug a bore-well and raised sugarcane crop. While so, one P.Govardhanan applied for grant of quarry lease over an extent of 1.00 hectares in Sy.No.246/12 of Devalampet village and the third respondent issued No Objection Certificate dated 5.3.2007. After coming to know of the same, the petitioner filed his objections before the third respondent stating that the said land is the agricultural land and the same cannot be recommended for grant of quarry lease. The third respondent
after perusal of the patta certificate cancelled the NOC by order dated 08.03.2007 and requested respondents 1 and 2 not to grant lease of the aforesaid land. However, the third respondent again issued NOC on 15.03.2007 and the petitioner submitted a representation to respondents 1 and 2 to enquire the matter. So far the respondents have not considered the objections and when proceeding to grant quarry lease of the said land, the present Writ Petition was filed.
A counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent stating that the said P.Goavardhanan applied for grant of quarry lease for black granite over an extent of 1.000 hectares in Sy.No.246/12 of Devalampet village for a period of twenty years. Though the third respondent initially issued NOC by proceedings dated 5.03.2007 stating that the land in question is classified as ‘gutta poramboke’, by subsequent proceedings dated 8.3.2007 requested the second respondent not to grant quarry lease as it is covered by DKT patta. The third respondent again by proceedings dated 19.03.2007 informed that the DKT patta granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the said land has been resumed to the Government and requested the second respondent to grant quarry lease. Based on the same, the second respondent submitted proposals to the first respondent for grant of quarry lease in favour of the said P.Goavardhanan. The first respondent after examination of the proposals granted quarry lease by proceedings dated 18.7.2008. Against the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Government whereunder stay was granted on 18.8.2008 and the revision proceedings are pending consideration before the Government.
Having regard to these facts and circumstances, it is to be seen that the petitioner has not impleaded the lessee as a party respondent to the Writ petition. Further it is to be seen that the petitioner availed alternative remedy by filing a revision before the Government and as per the averments made in the counter affidavit, the said revision proceedings are pending consideration before the Government. In view of the same, no orders can be passed in the Writ Petition.
The Writ Petition is closed. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
DATED 3rd December, 2014. Msnrx
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court should intervene when the petitioner has not impleaded the lessee and has an alternative remedy pending before the Government.
M. Prasad
The Director of Mines and Geology, Government of AP
M. Govardhanan
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
