Disposed

Badeboina Hanumaiah, v. Prl.Secy., Mines dept., State of T.S.

Telangana HC25 Apr 2018WP/11066/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the District Level Sand Committee to reexamine farmers' applications for sand decasting with speaking orders citing scientific and technical reasons within prescribed timelines, ensuring future compliance.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 2nd respondent to reexamine applications and issue speaking orders with scientific and technical reasons within the specified time lines.

Badeboina Hanumaiah, Vs Prl.Secy., Mines dept… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.11066, 11261, 11314, 11326, 11420, 12129, 12972, 13025 and 13130 of 2018

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

¶5

In this batch of cases, petitioners, who are farmers whose lands are adjacent to river Godavari, had sand deposit in their lands due to act of nature.

¶6

As per the policy notified vide G.O.Ms.No.3 dt.08-01-2015 by the 1^st respondent, which permits in Clause-7 decasting of sand in patta lands subject to certain conditions and making the said land fit for agriculture, petitioners made applications to the District Level Sand Committee (2^nd respondent) for grant of permission in October, 2016.

¶7

Petitioners contend that in spite of favourable reports being given by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District, Mandal Agricultural Officer, Wazeedu Mandal and District Ground Water Officer, Ground Water Department, Jayashankar Bhupalpally recommending grant of permission by DLSC for decasting the sand from their patta lands on 29-03-2017, on “technical grounds”, the 2^nd respondent had rejected the same. The said order does not disclose what those technical grounds are. However, it is not in dispute that vide proceedings dt.23-03-2017, by

¶8

MSR,J W.P.No.11066 of 2018 And batch.

¶9

¶10

giving the following reasons as technical reasons, the respondents

¶11

seek to justify the rejection of petitioners’ application for the same:

¶12

“(1) It leads to more scoring and erosion of more agriculture lands;

¶13

(2) The existing Panchayat Raj Roads designed upto 10 Tonnes capacity may be damaged.

¶14

(3) Even after de-casting of sand from patta lands, the land will hnot be utilized for cultivation, since the depth of sand is more than 4 meters, whereas the Ground Water Department is permitting upto 2.5 meters.

¶15

(4) Permission for de-casting of sand leads to revenue loss to Society reachers.

¶16

(5) Presently the de-silting of sand from Medigadda and Annaram barrages will be sufficient to the market needs.

¶17

(6) In light of wildlife sanctuary at Eturnagaram may be affected with number of vehicles.”

¶18

Learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions from the 1^st respondent, has stated that vide Memo No.2121/M.I(1)/20181 dt.16-04-2018 and Memo No.2121/M.I(1)/2018-3 dt.18-04-2018 fresh guidelines/time lines have been prescribed; that 2^nd respondent will reexamine the applications of the petitioners and others, who were rejected by orders similar to those passed on 29-03-2017 for decasting sand, and issue speaking order with scientific and technical reasons on case to case basis of each of the petitioners/applicants.

¶19

The 2^nd respondent shall strictly adhere to the time lines mentioned in the Memos issued by 1^st respondent in that regard and

¶20

MSR,J W.P.No.11066 of 2018 And batch.

¶21

¶22

any violation to do so will be viewed very seriously. In the event the 2^nd respondent considers favourably to petitioners’ applications, the 4^th respondent shall enter into agreements with petitioners afresh and decast the sand from their patta lands within the time stipulated in the above Memos. In case applications for decasting of any of the petitioners are rejected, petitioners are at liberty to approach this Court challenging the same.

¶23

These Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

¶24

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,

¶25

shall stand closed.

¶26

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶27

Date: 25-04-2018 Vsv

Badeboina Hanumaiah, v. Prl.Secy., Mines dept., State of T.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badeboina Hanumaiah, v. Prl.Secy., Mines dept., State of T.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manzoor Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. C. Parvathi Vs The State of Telangana

B.Ravi Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Sunkari Raja Ram Vs State of Telangana

Kalvacharla Saramma Vs The State of Telangana

Indla Narayana, Vs The State of Telangana, rep by its Prl Secretary