Disposed

N. Mahender Reddy, Mahaboobnagar Dist v. Prl Secy, Revenue Dept., Hyd and 9 Ot

Telangana HC7 Jun 2022WP(PIL)/65/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed the public interest litigation claiming illegal sand extraction as infructuous since the permitted quantity was already lifted by the government for housing and irrigation schemes, rendering the petition meaningless.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of as infructuous; no further orders required regarding the quantity already lifted; no costs.

N. Mahender Reddy, Mahaboobnagar Dist Vs Prl Secy… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

Hlcll OO-R[ FCR Tl-E STA]E OF^{TEI-iAI\GAI\A} AT I-IOERABAD (Special Orig inal Jurisdict ion)

¶3

TIESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JI.AE 'll,lD TtELJSAfD At\D IV\EillTY IIAO

¶4

FFESB{T

¶5

]}f I-{f{'BLE TFE CF{IEF JUSTICE SATISH CFIAICRA SMFTvA AND TTE FO\I,BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAIo KT.IMARSI-IAVILI V1P(P|L) t\O: 65 OF 2017

¶6

8e tween :

¶7

N. Mahende r Reddy, S/o N. Sekhar Reddy, Aged about 34 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Peddarunuga ichede Village, Addakal Mandal, lVHtaboobnaga r District, Telangana State .^pEr tr tq\ER

¶8

AT\D

¶9

The State of Telangana, Revenue DepartBslt, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

¶10

The District Collector & Chairman,, District Level Sand Comit tee, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar D i s t r i c t, Te I angana Sta te .

¶11

The Revenue Divisional Off icer,, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar Dist r ict, Te langana State.

¶12

The Tahsildar,, Addaka I Mandal, Mahaboobnaga r District, Te langana S.tate .

¶13

Te langana State !/lineral Deve loprent Corporation Ltd., , F\Perabad, rep. by its Vice Chaiman &Managing Director.

¶14

The Director of Mines and Geology,, BRI(R Bhavan, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad.

¶15

The District GroundWater Off icer,, Mahaboobnagar District, Te langana State .

¶16

The Executive Engineer, lB Divison, lrrigation Dept.,, ll/Hraboohraga r, Mahaboobnaga r District, Telangana State.

¶17

The Superintendent of Police, Mahaboobnagar District.,^-

¶18

The Panchayat Secretary., Peddarunuga lched Grarpanchayat Peddanandadi Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶19

...RESrc[DENrs Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circurstances stated in the affidavit filed thererarith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of tvUtOAaVlJS, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent herein in issuing Proceedings No.4515/Sand/2009, dated 09.12.2016, according pemission for extraction of Sand f rqn l, ll & lll Order Streans for local use at identified areas of Moosape t and Addakal Manda I

¶20

I\lbhaboobnaga r District, as per the approved guidelines I procedures, contained in Nsn Sand Policy envisaged in Telangana State Sand Mining Rules 2015 as published vide GClVb.No.3, lndustries & CqrrrBrce (Mines-l) Departnent, dated 08.01 .2015, without taking into consideration the envirormental impact that may be caused due to rernov ing Sand frcrn Pedda Vagu passing through Peddaru.mga lchede Vi llage, Addakal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District is concerned, as illegal, contrary to law and consequently direct the Respondents 2 lo 4 herein to forttrwith stop excavation of Sand fran ll Order Strerns of Pedda Vagu situated at Peddanunga lchede Village, Addakal lMardal, Mahaboobnagar District is concerned, in order to save acres of cultivated lands f ran drying up

¶21

l.A. l',lOr I OF 2017(V1P(P lLXr,/P. lrlO: 124 G 2017) Petition under Section 151 CFC praying that in the circunstances stated in the aff idavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the Respondents 2 to 4 herein to forthwith stop excavation of Sand fran / in respect of ll Order Streans of Pedda Vagu situated at Peddahnunga lchede Vi llage, Addaka I lVhdal, Mahaboobnagar Distr ict, pursuant to the lmpugned Proceedings No.4515/Sand/ 2009, dated 09.12.2016,^pending disposal of the above Writ Pet it ion

¶22

Counse I for the Petit ioner: SRI M. RATM^REDDY

¶23

Counse I for Responden t Nos. 1 to 4: GP FoR REVENE

¶24

Counsel for Respondent No. 5: SRI PMTAP^{RED/VEIhA,ELLI}

¶25

Oounsel for Respondent No. 6: GP FGMINES^AIrDGE0-Gf

¶26

Oounse I for Respondent Nos. 7 & B: GP ffi^{IRRIC.ATIO!AIrD CAD}

¶27

Counse I for Responden t No. 9: GP^FCRHCI/E

¶28

Oounsel for Respondent No.^{'10: SRI} G,^{NIAFEI\DERREDDY} SC FG G+[/ PANOIAYAT

¶29

The Court made the^{fo I lowing.ORDER}

¶30

¶31

THE HON'BLE'I'HE CHIEF IUSTICE SA]'ISH CHANDRA SITARMA

¶32

4ND

¶33

THE HON'BLE SRI I US'TICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI W.P (PIL) No. 65 of 2017

¶34

OR.DE^{, p*} tt, u*'bt lk chnfl'tt&.t,tth Lh,rta sha a)

¶35

¶36

¶37

The petitioncr bcfore this Court has filed this Irublic Interest I Litigation aggrievc{ by procccdings dated 09.12.2016, issued by respondent No.2 granung pcrmission for extract-ion of sand from I, II and III Ordcr Strcams for locai use at identified areas of

¶38

Moosapet and Addakal Nfandal, Xlahaboobnagar District.

¶39

The pctition rvas Frled in the ycar 2017 and a reply was also filed in the samc year.^'I hc lifting of sand, as stated irr the reply, u/as done only througl-r tirc Statc tv'lining Corporation for the purposes o[ local housing schcmcs, irrigation works and certaio private works within thc district.

¶40

The quantiry, rvhich rvas pcrrnittcd to be lifted, has already been lifted, as stated bv the lcarne d G ovcrnment Advocate in the open court long back, and thcreforc, rro tiirthcr ordcrs are rcquired to bc passcd in respect of tl'rc quantity already liflted. Meaning thereby, the petition has becornc irr fr-uctuous.

¶41

¶42

e-1

¶43

'l he !(/P(?IL) is, accordingly, disposcd of as infruouous with

¶44

a [bcrfi'to tl-rc petitioncr to file a fresh writ petition in casc need s<>

¶45

arises in lut urc. No costs.

¶46

.\ s a scquel, miscellaneous petirions, pending i[ any, stand

¶47

dismisscd i I SD/. B.SATYAVAIHI DEflJry REGISTRAR

/ /TRLJE OOFr''//

scnJoFF ICER

To,

CE @ to Sri M Ratna Reddy Advocate I CR.C] 2. Turc CCs to GP For kvenue, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OuT]

¶52

Gre @ to Sri Pratap Reddy Vennavelli Advoca te [OPtf,] 4. Two 6s to GP For Mines & Geology, H igh Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶53

Tup CCs to GP For I rr igat ion and Comul Area Deve lopnent, H igh C6urt for the State of Telangana. IOUI]

¶54

Turo @s to GP For l-bre, High Court for the State of Telangana. IOurl

¶55

OE @ to Sri G. Narender Reddy, SC for Gran Panchayat^(OPIE)

¶56

Trwo CD Copies

¶57

Ore Spare Copy

tvE ltl {fr

HlC+I M.-,RI-

DATED 07 10612022

!:
.j/
CFGR
ViP(PlL).No.65 of 2017

¶63

DlSm ING OF THE \ /P(P lL ) AS I NFRL,SIT.IfJS, W ITFCUT GTS

¶64

ts.

N. Mahender Reddy, Mahaboobnagar Dist v. Prl Secy, Revenue Dept., Hyd and 9 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Mahender Reddy, Mahaboobnagar Dist v. Prl Secy, Revenue Dept., Hyd and 9 Ot

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

Sri. Dasari Venkatesh Yadav and 3 Others Vs Sri. Dasari Bal Narsimha and 5 Others

M/S.Karnataka Commercial and Industrial Corporation Private Limited Vs the Airport Director and 3 Others

M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Limited Vs M/s Techno Unique Infratech Pvt. Ltd.

Dharani Nagar Welfare Association Vs The State of Telangana

Paduru Ramana Reddy Vs The Union of India

M/s. Aadeshwar Aggregates Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Telangana and 8 others