IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.167 of 2009 Between: Mother’s Memorial Society of Charities, Ongole, Prakasam District. ..... Petitioner AND The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Ongole, Prakasam District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Gade Venkateswara Rao Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Mines & Geology Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri V. Subrahmanyam Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.167 of 2009 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard Sri Gade Vnekateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri V. Subrahmanyam for respondent No.3 and Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty for respondent No.4. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860. The Tahsildar, Tangutur, granted DKT pattas to 18 members of the petitioner’s society @ Ac.2.00 each in Sy.No.388/1 out of the total extent of Ac.358.88 cents of Marlapudi Village for carrying on agriculture. By proceedings dated 02.12.2008, the Tahsildar permitted the said 18 members to remove stones, gravel, earth etc., from the land to a depth of one meter to make the same suitable for agriculture. When the assignees started removing the material, the respondents started interfering with the said activity. Therefore, the society filed the present Writ Petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that Sri K. Brahma Naidu, the President of the petitioner society filed application dated 22.07.2008 for grant of quarry lease for gravel over an extent of Ac.36.00 in Sy.No.388/1 of Marlapadu Village for a period of five years and that the said application was received in his office on 28.08.2008 and the same was referred to the Tahsildar, Tangutur for submitting a report. The Tahsildar, Tangutur, in his proceedings dated 27.09.2008 informed that an extent of Ac.328.73 cents was given to respondent No.3 Corporation and in respect of the balance extent of Ac.70.15 cents DKT pattas were issued and that there is no objection for removal of gravel, stones etc., to make the land suitable for agriculture. It is further averred that the area in respect of which DKT pattas were granted passes through the middle and southern portion of Sy.No.388 and the same is overlapping with the mining lease recommended to be granted in favour of respondent No.3 Corporation. That on the request of the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No.3 Corporation, the District Collector issued proceedings dated 28.08.1992 directing the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tangutur, not to allot any Government land situated within a radius of 1 km in Sy.No.769 of Konijedu and Sy.No.388 of Marlapadu Villages and that in deviation of those directions, DKT pattas were issued even though the area contains valuable iron ore. Respondent No.3 further stated that the Tahsildar has no power whatsoever to grant permission to remove the gravel, stones etc., which are valuable minerals. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that the extent of Ac.328.73 cents was reserved in favour of the Corporation and that the balance extent of Ac.70.15 cents is overlapping with the area reserved in favour of the Corporation and the said land pertains to peripheral portion. The fact that the area in respect of which DKT pattas were granted is covered by iron ore is not disputed by the petitioners. At the hearing, it is stated that the DKT pattas issued in favour of 18 members of the petitioner society were cancelled and the appeal filed questioning the said cancellation order is pending before the appellate authority. Therefore, in this Writ Petition it is not appropriate to adjudicate upon the correctness or otherwise of grant of land, which is mineral rich for agriculture purpose. The very fact that the President of the petitioner society has made an application before respondent No.3 for grant of quarry lease for gravel, itself shows that the whole area is mineral rich and the obvious intention of the petitioner in obtaining DKT pattas is to carry on mining activity rather than carrying on agricultural activity. The petitioners cannot be permitted to remove the mineral from the earth in the guise of making it fit for cultivation without obtaining permission for such removal and transportation from respondent No.1, which is the competent authority for granting such permission. No provision is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court under which the Tahsildar is empowered to permit removal of the mineral such as gravel, earth, stones etc., which undisputedly are minor mineral without the permission from the competent authority under the provisions of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner society to enable it to carry on an illegal activity. If the petitioners are genuinely interested in making the assigned land fit for cultivation, they can certainly approach respondent No.1 with an application for granting appropriate permission for removal of the existing surface of the land to the extent it is required. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.177 of 2009 and WVMP.Nos.978 and 2365 of 2009 and 1170 of 2010 are also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 19.04.2011 ES