Disposed

D.Chandra Babu Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC7 Sept 2018WP/32179/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Residents of Pandigutukuru Village challenged the contemplation of quarry lease and stone crushing unit to a third party, alleging their objectionmate was ignored. The court directed authorities to verify objections, hear petitioners, and proceed in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent Nos.1 to 6 to look into the representation dated 22.06.2018, proceed in accordance with law, and grant opportunity of hearing to petitioners before deciding on the quarry lease.

D.Chandra Babu Naidu Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.32179 OF 2018

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶5

Government Pleaders for Industries, Mines & Geology, Revenue and Irrigation, appearing for the respondents.

¶6

Petitioners herein claim to be the residents of Pandigutukuru Village, Irala Mandal, Chitoor District and, according to them, they are the joint cultivators of an extent of Ac.14.52 cents in Sy.Nos.1526/2, 1526/3, 1527/2 etc., of Mudigolam village, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District and an extent of Ac.0.36 cents in Sy.No.74/1 of Chigarapalle village, Irala Mandal, along with their family members.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein raised a mango garden in the said lands, which is seven years old and there is an existing kunta by name ‘Rangamma Kunta’ about 200 meters from the above said lands and the said kunta is useful for cultivation and for the needs of the petitioners herein and, pursuant to the representation made by the residents of the nearby villagers in 2013, the Irrigation Department got the works of restoration of tank bund of the said tank executed by expending a sum of about Rs.9.5 lakhs and, as a result of the same, there is increase in the storage capacity of

¶8

AVSS,J W.P.No.32179 of 2018

¶9

¶10

the said kunta. It is further submitted that, in the year, 2017, pursuant to an application, said to have been made by one Sri M.Lavakumar Naidu and his wife, Smt.M.Reddamma, for grant of quarry lease over an extent of Ac.3.450 hectares each in Sy.No.1511 of Mudigolam village, the concerned authorities of Mines Department and the Tahsildar, Irala Mandal processed their application for grant of lease but, in view of the resistance of the villagers and the farmers, they did not pursue the same.

¶11

In the present Writ Petition, it is the grievance of the petitioners herein that the official respondents herein are actively contemplating to grant quarry lease and permission for establishment of a stone crushing unit in favour of the unofficial respondent herein-seventh respondent, despite the objections/representation made by the petitioners herein, along with other villagers, on 22.06.2018. A copy of the said objections/representation is enclosed along with the present Writ Petition, wherein petitioners herein highlighted various aspects, including the damage that is likely to be caused by the said quarry lease and by establishment of crushing unit in the subject land. The complaint of the petitioners herein, as advocated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that, without considering the said objections/representation made by

¶12

AVSS,J W.P.No.32179 of 2018

¶13

¶14

the petitioners herein, respondent authorities are contemplating

¶15

to grant quarry lease to the seventh respondent herein.

¶16

On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleaders that no lease has been granted in favour of anybody so far and if any objections are pending consideration before the official respondents, the same will be verified and appropriate further process will be undertaken by the respondent authorities.

¶17

Recording the above submission, Writ Petition is disposed of, directing respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein to look into the representation/objections, dated 22.06.2018, said to have been submitted by the petitioners herein, and proceed further, strictly in accordance with law, while considering the request for grant of quarry lease in the subject area, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners herein. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶19

__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶20

07^th September, 2018 Tsy

D.Chandra Babu Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Chandra Babu Naidu 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

Smt.G.Jagadevi Vs State of Telangana

M. Vijay Kumar Vs State of T.S.

P. Ravinder Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Patti Gnaneshwar Vs The State of Telangana

Eruvuru Malyadri Vs The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Chennuru Roja Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh