THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.11293 of 2002 Dated:05.07.2010 Between: M/s.Raghavendra Minerals and Chemicals, And another. ...Petitioners And The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.11293 of 2002 ORDER: The instant writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not removing the encroachments in the land admeasuring Acs.12.06 cents comprised in survey No.186 (Plot No.B) of Bachpally Village of Qutbullapur Mandal in Ranga Reddy District, and for a consequential direction to respondents to forthwith evict the encroachers. The admitted fact of the matter is that the first petitioner is a mining proprietary concern. It has obtained a mining lease for quartz vide orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 13.01.1984, for a period of twenty years in respect of land referred to above (hereafter called, the subject land). It is now not disputed that the lease expired in 2004, and the Government vide orders in G.O.Ms.No.36, Industries & Commerce (MI) Department, dated 15.02.2005, granted renewal for a further period of twenty years with effect from 20.01.2004. The petitioners allege that they have been carrying on mining operations over seventeen years, that on 19.01.2004 some persons came to the land and informed that they were handed over possession of the land for construction of houses. The first petitioner then gave a complaint to the third respondent, in vain. The first petitioner then represented to the first respondent as well as the Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners allege that the District Collector advised the Mandal Revenue Officer to look into the matter and submit a report, and the Superintendent of Police also directed the Sub Inspector of Police, Dundigal, to give necessary protection. It is alleged that the Chairman, Zilla Parishad, allotted the land to third parties without any authority, and that so long as lease is subsisting the land leased out to the petitioners cannot be assigned/allotted to others. The petitioners also contend that the allotment of land for houses is contrary to the Government policy as disclosed in G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 16.02.2002, which prohibits allotment of land with minerals for any other purposes other than mining. The matter was admitted on 22.07.2002. On 23.08.2002 this Court passed interim orders in W.P.M.P.No.20791 of 2002 directing respondent Nos.2 and 4 not to interfere with the quarrying operations in the subject land. This Court also observed that it shall be open to respondent Nos.2 and 4 to proceed against the petitioners if any explosive material is used for quarrying without valid licence. Subsequently, the petitioners filed W.P.M.P.No.4796 of 2003 seeking interim direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to forthwith remove encroachments on the land leased out to the petitioners. In addition to the counter affidavit filed in the main writ petition the third respondent filed a counter affidavit (sworn on 17.03.2003) enclosing a map showing survey No.186 at Bachpally. For ready reference, the counter averments are extracted hereunder. It is submitted that if at all there is any constructions, they are not in the land allotted to the petitioner but elsewhere in the Sy.No.186. 1474 house site pattas was issued to eligible members of weaker sections who have deposited the requisite amounts in favour of the District Manager, Housing under the Housing Programme. It appears that some of the beneficiaries under the Housing Scheme are making constructions in their individual capacities without waiting for the Housing Scheme Programme to commence. These contentions cannot be construed to be encroachments. Further no constructions are being put up in the land allotted to the petitioner in Plot-B of Sy.No.186 of Bachupally village. On the contrary the petitioner is unauthorisedly carrying out mining operations in the Eastern corner of Sy.No.186, which is in close proximity of the Housing Colony. The petitioner has also excavated deep pits for mining operations in land other than land allotted to it. The petitioner is liable to be evicted from the said lands and is also responsible for restoring the land to its original condition. It is submitted that in addition to the 1464 house site pattas granted, there are (364) existing houses in Sy.No.186 which were constructed earlier under Housing Programme. The petitioner is unauthorisedly conducting un-authorised quarrying operations very close to the housing colony. It is reiterated that there are no encroachments whatsoever in the land allotted to the petitioner in Sy.No.186 of Bachupally village. The allegations of political interference in the matter is false and invented for the purpose of the writ petition. The further allegation that this respondent is under pressure by the local leaders and anti-social elements is without basis. From the counter affidavit in the writ petition and counter affidavit in the W.P.M.P the following case of respondent Nos.1 to 3 would emerge. The petitioners were granted lease in respect of plot No.B in survey No.186, which is situated on the western side of the field. The Government allotted land on the eastern side for the purpose of housing scheme. 1474 house site pattas were granted to eligible members who deposited their contribution to the District Manager (Housing). The petitioners are allegedly carrying on the mining operations in the land abutting to the plot, which was earmarked for housing purposes, which is in close proximity to the housing colony. The petitioners have not filed any reply affidavit denying the averments in the counter affidavit. It is well settled that the uncontroverted averments in the affidavits are deemed to have been admitted (see Naseem Bano v State of Uttar Pradesh[1] and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v Darius Shapur Chenai[2]). Therefore, in view of the counter averments, it must be held that there is no encroachment of the land leased out to the petitioners and that it is only the petitioners who encroached upon the Government land which was not leased out to the petitioners and carrying on mining operations illegally. There is no dispute that mining in the area which is not allotted would certainly be a misconduct attracting cancellation of mining lease itself. This Court, however, hastens to add that it is for the authorities to take action by following due process of law. Counsel for the petitioners relies on G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 16.02.2002 in support of the contention that the very allotment of house sites in survey No.186 which is earmarked for mining operations is illegal. The submission cannot be accepted. The said Government Order reads as under. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ABSTRACT Mines & Minerals – Instructions on issue of No Objection Certificates for lands having mineral wealth – Issued. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE (MI) DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms.No.74 Dated 16-2-2002 ORDER: It has been brought to the notice of the Government that House site pattas have been granted in certain districts on lands which are having rich/rare mineral wealth. Allotment of Mineral rich areas for such general purposes has an adverse impact on industrial growth and Government revenues. Since minerals are location specific and are essential for the industrial development of the State it has been decided that lands having rich/concentrated Mineral Wealth should not be allotted for any purpose other than mining. The Director of Mines & Geology is therefore requested to take necessary action to identify the lands/cluster of lands having a concentration of Mineral Wealth and inform all the District Collectors about the occurrences of such minerals. The District Collectors are requested not to issue NOCs for such identified lands for any purpose other than mining. This Order issues with the concurrence of Social Welfare Department/Revenue Department vide their U.O.Nos.4012, Dt:28-12-2001/4238, Dt:1-1-2002 respectively. (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH) MINNIE MATHEW, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. A plain reading of the Government Order would show that the lands which are having rich/rare mineral wealth should not be allotted for any other purpose other than the mining. No survey report or prospecting report is placed before this Court to show that the entire land in Bachpally or land in survey No.186 has such rich/rare mineral wealth. Quartz may not certainly fall in such category. Secondly, no evidence is placed before this Court to show that entire survey No.186 has quartz, which is of good value. Thirdly, as per the map enclosed to the counter affidavit in W.P.M.P.No.4796 of 2003, the land earmarked/allotted for housing purposes on which houses have already come up is far away from plot No.B in survey No.186, and therefore, the petitioners cannot raise any objection. Even otherwise, if the petitioners are able to demonstrate that the entire land in survey No.186 should not be allotted for any other purpose other than mining, their remedy is to approach the Government and in this writ petition such a declaration cannot be granted. There is a categorical averment in the counter affidavit that there is no encroachment in the land leased out to the petitioners, and therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and filed without any regard to the truth. The petitioners have approached this Court with unclean hands having encroached upon the land, which was not leased out to the petitioners. The Writ Petition for the above reasons is dismissed with costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 05.07.2010 vs [1] 1993 Suppl.(4) SCC 46 = 1993 (4) SLR 803 [2] 2005 AIR SCW 4796