IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 25010 of 2007 Between: K. Prabhakara Rao, S/o. Appala Swamy, R/o. Jangareddygudem Village and Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Jangareddygudem Mandal, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari Distrtict. 2 The District Collector, West Godavari at Eluru. 3 Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, West Godavari District at Eluru. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly onein the nature of Writ of Manamus declaring the action ofthe Respondents 1 & 2 particularly, the 1st respondent in interfering with the Petitioner's subsisting lease hold right in the land fo Ac. 1.50 cents in sy.No. 79 of Jangareddigudem, West godavari District, by directing the petitioner to stop his legal quarrying operating without passing or serving any order and without serving anynotice on him and in encouraging the gullible villagers to raise huts unauthorisedly as illegal, Unjust, arbitrary, malafide, without any authority of law and against the constitutional guarantees, apart fronm being violation of the principles of Natural Justice and against the spirit of G.O.Ms.No. 74, Industries and Commerce (Mines-1) department dated 16-2-2006m, and to consequently direct the respondents not to intefere with the petitioner's quarrying operations in the leasehold in an extent of Ac. 1-50 cents in Sy.No. 79 of Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District incuding by way of encouraging the innocent gullible villagers in and around Jangareddigudem and other villages to raise huts unauthorisedly and to pass such other further order or orders as this Hon'bl;e Court may deem fit and proper int he circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SARVA BHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER:- The matter is coming under the caption of interlocutory. At the request of the Counsel on record, the writ petition itself is being disposed of finally. 2. Heard the Counsel. 3. The writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2,particularly, the 1st respondent in interfering with the petitioner’s subsisting lease hold right in the land of Ac.1-50 cents in Sy.No.79 of Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District, by directing the petitioner to stop his legal quarrying operating without passing or serving any order and without serving any notice on him and in encouraging the gullible villagers to raise huts unauthorizedly as illegal, unjust, arbitary, malafide,without any authority of law and against the constitutional guarantees, apart from being violaltion of the principles of natural justice and against the spirit of G.O.Ms.No.74, Industries and Commerce (Mines-I) Department dt.16-2-2006, and to consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s quarrying operations in the lease hold in an extent of Ac.1-50 cents in Sy.No.79 of Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District including by way of encouraging the innocent gullible villagers in and around Jangareddigudem and other villages to raise huts unauthorisedly and to pass such other suitable orders. 4. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner had made an application to the 3rd respondent for grant of quarrying work for building stone in an extent of Ac.1-50 cents in Sy.No.79 of Jangareddigudem village and Mandal,West Godavari District. For which the 3rd respondent after following all the legal requirements, vide proceedings No.4694/21/2001 dt.4-4-2002, sanctioned the petitioner to do quarrying work for building stone for a period of 10 years with effect from 4-4-2002 to 3-4-2012 which was followed by an Indenture dated 4-4-2002 between the petitioner and the Government represented by the Asst.Director of Mines and Geology at Eluru i.e., the respondent herein. Eversince the petitioner had been doing quarrying operations in the said land by following all the requirements as per rules and also the petitioner had been paying the requisite rents and royalties as provided under rules. All the while, the quarrying operations are not so lucrative since there are ups and downs in selling building stones. However the petitioner is continuing the quarrying operations and his lease is still subsisting. There is no dispute between the petitioner and his lessor i.e., the Asst.Director of Mines and Geology, Eluru who is the 3rd respondent herein and at the same time his lessor has been issuing permits to the petitioner from month to month. Further it is stated that there is a vast extent of building stone available in the said Sy.No.79 which is required for construction of houses, compound walls and tank beds and also useful for laying roads (gravel). Further, there are two or three more quarry leases, granted in the same survey numbers to other persons. The persons, who are working in the petitioner’s quarry, are eking out their livelihood by quarrying building stone and there is no other source of income for them. Further, the Building Stone quarrying from petitioner’s lease premises is being purchased by the people of 20 villages in and around Jangareddigudem as there are no other quarries having Building Stone in existence. The land under petitioner’s lease as well as the surrounding lands are dry lands and are situated in a hillock area. The said lands are rocky lands with uneven levels and are not at all useful for any agricultural operations or for residential purposes since there is no water facility available in that area. The entire land in Sy.No.79 is a hillock area with heavy stones and deep pits. Further it is stated that before granted lease to the petitioner, the Mines and Geology department’s official visited and inspected the area and found that the said land is not objectionable in any manner for granted lease for quarrying purposes and as such they have granted the lease hold rights to the petitioner. By the time of such inspection, there were no houses within a distance of 500 metres from the said land. It is also stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.74, Industries and Commerce (Mines-I) Department dt.16-2-2002 stating that the lands having mineral wealth, should not be allotted for any purpose other than mining. The said Sy.No.79 is having vast building stone and can be extracted for a further period of 50 years. As such, this land cannot be utilized or allotted for any purpose other than mining. If the said land is allotted for any other purpose, particularly for the purpose of house sites, the ecological balance would be affected and hence the same is not permissible under Order 15 of the Board Standing Orders. It is further stated that it is pertinent to mention here that in the recent days, the villagers of the petitioner and the surrounding villagers have occupied unauthorisedly some extents of land beside petitioner’s lease hold land and raised huts illegally without any permission from any of the authorities beyond 150 metres of his lease hold land. There is absolutely no objection to quarry in petitioner’s land because the said houses have been raised here and there beyond 150 meters under the scheme of the Government to provide house sites to landless poor. It is further stated that the 1st respondent’s officials visited the petitioner’s quarry lease hold land in the first week of May, 2007 and informed him that the 1st respondent directed to stop the quarrying work. When the petitioner asked them for reasons, they have refused to give him any reasons. The petitioner further submits that the 1st respondent without assigning any reason or without issuing any notice or without passing any orders abruptly asked him to stop the quarrying operations. Immediately, the petitioner submitted a representation dt.11-5-2007 to the 1st respondent requesting him to visit his lease hold land and to find out the facts on ground. When the petitioner enquired as to why the 1st directed the petitioner to stop quarrying operations, he came to know that some persons who raised houses beyond 150 meters to his lease hold land made some oral complaints against his quarry work to the 1st respondent. The petitioner stated in his representation given to the 1st respondent that as it is in no way objectionable or harmful to the residents who raised unauthorized houses which are beyond 150 meters from his lease hold land. But there is no response from the 1st respondent. After waiting for some time, the petitioner again started doing quarrying work as he is holding valid lease till 2012. It is further stated that the respondents 1 and 2 have no authority to cancel petitioner’s lease or to direct him to stop quarrying work as the lease was granted to him by the 3rd respondent i.e., Mines and Geology department but not by the respondents 1 and 2, particularly, the 1st respondent. In case of any violation of rules by the petitioner, it is only the department of Mines and Geology, which sanctioned lease to the petitioner, is having power to terminate his lease by issuing 6 months prior notice under clause-16 of Form-G Indenture dt.4-4-2002. The 1st respondent is frequently directing the petitioner to stop the quarrying work in his lease hold land without passing any order in writing or without issuing any notice. Further it is stated that inspite of representations both oral and in writing, the respondents 1 and 2 are encouraging the villagers in and around Jangareddigudem, to raise huts in Sy.No.79. It appears, some of the persons were granted enjoyment certificates for their houses which are far away from petitioner’s lease hold land. The respondents are encouraging to raise house near to petitioner’s lease hold land, under the influence of local politicians, under various schemes of the Government to provide house sites to houseless poor. For providing house sites to the poor, this land is not at all suitable as it is having building stone which is useful for the surrounding 20 villagers and as such, cannot be allotted for that purpose since the Government would lose mineral wealth and royalty to the exchequer and also since the lnd is not at all suitable either for agricultural operations or residential purposes. In case the said lands are allotted to houseless poor, they would face difficulties to get water and electricity and other amenities. It is only in order to appease some local political leaders who are always in the hunt for votes from the innocent gullible public, these developments are taking place thereby the respondents are encouraging the gullible public to occupy and raise house in the said Sy.No.79 even though G.O.Ms.No.74 Industries and Commerce (Mines-I) department dt.16-2-2002 prohibits such allotment. In fact the petitioner brought all these factors to the notice of the 1st respondent. But the 1st respondent, without considering all these aspects, is causing obstruction to continue his qry work in his lease hold land. There is a hectic activity in encouraging gullible public to raise houses or huts in the land under petitioner’s lease which is meant only for the purpose of quarrying building stone. At any time the villagers of Jangareddigudem and the surrounding villages, may occupy petitioner’s leasehold land unauthorisedly and lay residential huts, to his prejudice. In such a case, petitioner’s quarrying operations would come to a stand still. Further, this building stone is very useful for the middle class people in the construction of houses and tobacco barrens. Ryots of surrounding village in the area use to raise baron tobacco. As already stated above, if these lands are occupied or allotted for the purpose of constructing houses, there would be any amount of loss to the exchequer. Further, the petitioner would also incur heavy loss as he had invested huge amounts for this purpose and he has been paying seigniorage and royalty. Hence, the petitioner constrained to approach this Court praying for appropriate reliefs as already aforesaid. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that while granting house site pattas to the houseless poor people the desirability or suitability of the land towards grant of house sites before assignment by the concerned authorities. It is also stated that it is not correct that the allegations that the 1st respondent officials visited petitioner’s quarry lease hold land in the 1st week of May, 2007, and informed to the petitioner that the 1st respondent directed to convey stopping the quarrying work without assigning any reasons or without issuing any notices or without passing any orders and that he filed a representation dt.11-5-2007 before the 1st respondent requesting to visit the lease hold land are not at all correct. The 1st respondent never conveyed any message to the petitioner to stop quarrying. Further it is also not correct to say that the petitioner filed a representation dt.11-5- 2007 before the 1st respondent. It is also further stated that the allegations 1st respondent sent message to the petitioner to stop quarrying operations basing on oral complaints made by the authorized dwelling house owners beyond 150 meters to his lease hold lands is also not correct. None has complained against petitioner’s quarrying operations. Further it is also averred that it was never conveyed to the petitioner by the 1st respondent to stop quarrying work and that, his lease will be cancelled by the 1st respondent. The allegation that the 1st respondent is frequently directing the petitioner to stop the quarrying work in the petitioner’s lease hold land without passing any order in writing or without issuing any notice is also not correct, the 1st respondent has never conveyed any message or order to the petitioner as alleged. It is also stated that it is a fact that enjoyment certificates for the houses which are far away from petitioner’s lease hold lands were granted. It is further stated that as admitted by the petitioner there are no encroachments in the petitioner’s lease hold land and hence no enjoyment certificate for any kind of occupation in lease hold land of the petitioner were granted. It is also further stated that it is not correct to say that the respondents are encouraging to raise houses near to the petitioner’s lease hold lands under the influence of local politicians to provide house sites to houseless poor. Further specific stand had been taken that the 1st respondent never interfered with the leasehold rights of the petitioner. This is the stand taken in the counter affidavit of R.1 and R.2. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by R.3, it is stated that a quarry lease for building stone, over an extent of Ac.1-50 in Sy.No.79 of Jangareddigudem village and mandal, West Godavari District has been granted for a period of 10 years vide Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kakinada, Proc.No.1332/Q2/2002, dt.14-3-2002 basing on the No Objection Certificate issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Jangareddigudem vide Lr.No.L.Dis.58/2002(a) dt.14-2-2002. The petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.12150/- towards Dead Rent and also paid an amount of Rs.12150/- towards security deposit vide Postal Savings Bank account No.550676, dt.1-4-2002 at Head Post Office, Eluru and pledge the same to Government and execute the lease deed on 4-4-2002 with the 3rd respondent i.e., the Assist Director of Mines and Geology, Eluru vide proceedings No.4694/Q1/2001, dt.4-4-2002. The lease will be in force up to 3-4-2012. The lessee has paid an amount of Rs.89,230/- towards advance Seignior age fee and obtained dispatch permits for a quantity of 2277 cum.of Building stone from the date of execution i.e., from 4-4-2002 to 4-11-2008. Further it is averred that the Sy.No.79 of Jangareddigudem consists of Sand Stone which is sedimentary rock of lower Gondweanas and is useful for foundation works and for revetments. This respondent further states that as per the Office records another 4 leases were granted to different persons out of which two leases were expired in the year 2007, two leases were expired on 17-4-2008 and as on date the quarry lease held by Sri K.Prabhakar is in force i.e., up to 3-4-2012. Further it is stated that the royalty Inspector has inspected the area at the time of processing of the quarry lease application of the petitioner and reported that the applied area is a small hillock with an elevation of about 10 feet to 20 feet from ground level. Further it is also stated that there are no electric wires or telephone poles are passing through the applied area. Further the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jangareddigudem vide lr.No.58/2002 (a) dt.14-2-2002 has reported that the classification of R.S.No.79 in Jangareddigudem village is classified as ‘Konda Gutta Poramboke’ and that an extent of 1.000 Hect. Of the area in R.S.No.79 is available for grant of quarry lease for Building Stone and requested to take necessary action in the matter. Further it is stated that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.74, dt.16-2-2002 of Industries & Commerce (Mines-I) Department have stated that allotment of Mineral rich areas for general purposes i.e., house site pattas has an adverse in fact on industrial growth and Government revenues. Such minerals are location specific and are essential for the industrial development of state it has been decided that lands having rich/concentrated mineral wealth should not be allotted for any purposes other than mining. The Government also directed the District Collectors not to issue No Objection Certificates for such identified lands for any purposes other than mining. It is also stated that the quarry lease was granted by obtaining No Objection Certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jangareddigudem. It is stated that the leasehold has violated any lease deed conditions, the Dy.Director of Mines and Geology, Kakinada, is the competent authority for cancellation of lease by giving prior notice to the leaseholder. If the existing lease has to be cancelled under public interest, the Revenue Authorities has to submit necessary proposals to this Office for cancellation of the lease. After verification of the proposals submitted by the Revenue Authorities, this office will submit necessary proposals to the Dy.Director of Mines and Geology, Kakinada for premature termination of the lease. As per Rule 31 (xviii) of APMMC Rules, 1966, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology may, in consultation with the Government determine the lease, if it is considered by him by to do so in the public interest after giving two calendar months notice in writing. Further specific stand had been taken that this Office has not interfered with the quarrying operations in the leasehold of 1.5 Acs. in Sy.No.79 of Jangareddigudem village, West Godavari District and this office has been issuing the dispatch permits for transportation of building stone whenever applied by the leaseholder. This is the specific stand taken in the counter affidavit of R.3. 7. In the light of the respective stands taken in the counter affidavit filed by R.1 and R.2 and also the counter affidavit filed by R.3, it is clear that the respondents are in no way interfering with the quarrying operations of the petitioner. It is stated by the Counsel representing writ petitioner that though such stand had been taken by the respondents in their respective counter affidavits, due to the instructions by the 1st respondent, the 3rd respondent is not issuing the permits. However, the learned G.P. for Revenue and the learned G.P. for Mines and Geology would submit that in the light of the clear respective standS taken in the counter affidavits, permits are being issued since till now there was no cancellation or termination of lease. The same is recorded. In the light of the same, the writ petition is hereby allowed as prayed for. No costs. ______________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 4th August, 2009 smr