WA/1801/2008 of S.R.Y. Venkata Rayulu Vs S. Lakshmana Reddy on 30 December 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMAand

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

WRIT APPEAL Nos. 1801, 1802 and 1803 of 2008

&

Writ Petition Nos. 21463, 21457 and 21467 of 2007

WRIT APPEAL NO : 1801 of 2008

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated01/05/2008 in WP NO : 21463 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.)

Between:

S.R.Y. Venkata Rayulu S/o. Malladora

R/o. Kakinada, East Godavari District.

AND

1 S. Lakshmana Reddy S/o. Somasundara Reddy R/o.# 5-33-2, Main Road, Ramavara Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District. District.

2 The Government of India, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi, rep.by its Director 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep by its Secretary Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat Hyderabad. Commerce Department, Secretariat Hyderabad.

4 The Director of Mines and Geology, 8th floor, BRKR Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad 5 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kakinada East Godavari District. District.

6 The Tahsildar, Prattipadu Mandal, East Godavari District.

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated01/05/2008 in WP NO : 21457 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.)

Between:

S.R.Y. Venkata Rayulu (Hindu) S/o. Malladora R/o. Kakinada, East Godavari District.

..... APPELLANT

AND

1 M/s. Maheswari Minerals Rep. by its Managing Partner, P. Rama Krishna, R/o. Hyderabad.

2 The Government of India Rep. by the Director New Delhi.

3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

4 The Director of Mines & Geology

8th Floor, BRKR. Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

5 The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology Kakinada East Godavari District.

6 The Tahsildar Prattipadu Mandal

East Godavari District.

AND

WRIT APPEAL NO : 1803 of 2008

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated01/05/2008 in WP NO : 21467 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.)

Between:

1 S.R.Y. Venkata Rayulu S?o.Malladora Hindu R/o.Kakinada, E.G. District.

2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3 The Director of Mines and Geology, 8th Floor, BRKR Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. Road, Hyderabad.

6 S.R.Y. Venkata Rayulu S?o.Malladora

R/o.Kakinada, E.G. District.

..... APPELLANT

AND

1 T. Gangadhar Reddy S/o. Satyanarayana Reddy R/o. #69-10-5, Bhasker Nagar, Opp. C.T.R.I Rajahmundry, East Godavari.

2 The Government of India, Ministry of Mines New Delhi, Rep,. by itsDirector.Director.

3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

4 The Director of Mines and Geology, 8th Floor, BRKR Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant:MR.ADDEPALLI SURYANARAYANA

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Smt. N. Shobha Counsel for the Respondent No.2: A. Rajasekhar Reddy, Addl.

Solicitor General

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 6: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

&

Writ Petition No. 21463 of 2007

Between:

S.Lakshmana Reddy s/o.Somasundara Reddy

R/o.# 5-33-2, Main Road,Ramavaram Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District

AND

1 The Government of India., Ministry of Mines, New Delhi rep.by its Director 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep by its Secretary Industries & Commerce Commerce Department, Secretariat Hyderabad 3 The Director of Mines and Geology, 8th floor,BRKR Buildings Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad Road, Hyderabad 4 The Asst.Director of Mines and Geology, Kakinada East Godavari District 5 Tahsildar, Prattipadu mandal, East Godavari District 6 S.R.Y.Venkta Rayulu S/o.Malladora R/o.Kakinada, East Godavari District R/o.Kakinada, East Godavari District

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to issue an order or writ one in the nature of writ of certiorari bycalling for records in File No.2(110/2007-Rc-21 dated 24.9.2007 and quashthe same as arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction and declare that therevision is not maintainable and pass such other orders.

Between:

M/s. Maheswari Minerals rep. by its Managing Partner P.Rama Krishna S/o.P.Jaganmohan Rao R/o. Hyderabad.

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The Government of India, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi, rep. by itsDirector.Director.

2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3 The Director of Mines & Geology, 8th floor, BRKR Buildings Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

4 The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Kakinada, East GodavariDistrict.District.

5 Tahsildar, Prattipadu Mandal, East Godavari District.

6 S.R.Y.Venkata Rayulu S/o.Malladora

R/o.Kakinada, East Godavari District.

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to issue an order or writ one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari bycalling for records in file No. 2(12)/2007-RC-21, dt. 24.09.2007 and quash thesame as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and declare that the revisionis not maintainable and pass such other order or orders.

And

Between:

T. Gangadhar Reddy S/o. Satyanarayana Reddy R/o. #69-10-5, Bhasker Nagar, Opp. C.T.R.I Rajahmundry, East Godavari.

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The Government of India, Ministry of Mines New Delhi, Rep,. by itsDirector.Director.

2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3 The Director of Mines and Geology, 8th Floor, BRKR Buildings, TankBund Road, Hyderabad.Bund Road, Hyderabad.

6 S.R.Y. Venkata Rayulu S/o.Malladora R/o.Kakinada, E.G. District.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to issue an order or writ one in the nature of writ of Certiorari bycalling for records in File No.2(13)/2007-RC-21 dt. 24-9-2007 and quash thesame as arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction and declare that therevision is not maintainable and pass such other order or orders as thisHon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interests of justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.N.SHOBA

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASSTSOLICITOR GEN)

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5:G.P. for Industries andCommerce The Court made the following :

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMAAND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

WRIT APPEAL Nos.1801,1802 and 1803 OF 2008

COMMON JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R. Varma)

Since the controversy involved in all these three writ appeals and thewrit petitions being the same, they are disposed of by this common judgment.These three writ appeals are filed by the appellant-Respondent No.6against the orders of a learned single judge made in W.V.M.P. No. 1362 of2008 in W.P.M.P. No. 27829 of 2007 in W.P. No. 21463 of 2007; W.V.M.P.No. 1363 of 2008 in W.P.M.P. No.27822 of 2007 in W.P. No. 21457 of 2007and W.P.M.P. 1364 of 2008 in W.P.M.P. No. 27836 of 2007 in Writ PetitionNo. 21467 of 2007, dated 1.5.2008, respectively. It appears, therespondents-writ petitioners were granted mining lease by the Government ofAndhra Pradesh and assailing the ownership of the respondents, theappellant filed revision petitions before the Central Government, the 2[nd]respondent herein, under Rule 54 of the Rules, and the 1[st] respondentthrough order, dated 24.9.2007, suspended the order of the 2[nd] respondent.Assailing the said proceedings, the respondents-writ petitioners preferred theaforesaid writ petitions and the learned single judge of this Court whileissuing Rule Nisi, suspended the orders of the Central Government. Seekingvacation of the said interim orders, the appellant filed vacate stay petitions. The learned single Judge by the orders impugned in these appeals declinedto vacate the interim orders. Hence, the appellant filed these appeals.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the land in questionwas identified as mokasa land and he is disputing the title and ownership ofthe respondents-writ petitioners. He further contends that the appellant hasgot right over the land under lease; that the Government was not justified ingranting lease to any third parties and lot of hardship is caused to him andthat he has a preferential right for grant of mining lease.

Arguments

Whether the appellant is the real owner of the lands in question andwhether he has a preferential right for grant of mining lease over therespondents-writ petitioners are the questions, which cannot be gone into bythis Court, while exercising the discretion under Article 226 of theConstitution, and it can be agitated before the 2[nd] respondent-revisionalauthority in the pending revisions. Further, if any hardship is allegedlycaused to the appellant or is likely to be caused to the appellant by way ofgrant of lease to the respondents-writ petitioners, the same can always beagitated by the appellant by initiating appropriate proceedings before theappropriate forum, as per law.

Having regard to the fact that the revision petitions are pending beforethe 2[nd] respondent, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the matter. However, we feel it appropriate to direct the 2[nd] respondent to dispose of therevision petitions expeditiously.

Accordingly, all these writ appeals are disposed of with a direction tothe 2[nd] respondent to proceed with the hearing of the revision petitions and topass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously aspossible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of acopy of this judgment. It is needless to state that both the parties shallcooperate with the 2[nd] respondent in expeditious disposal of the revisionpetitions.

Writ Petition Nos. 21463, 21457 and 21467 of 2007:

In view of the common judgment passed in the writ appeals, no furtherorders need be passed in the writ petitions.

The writ appeals and the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.

No costs.

____________________JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA

__________________JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

30[th ]December, 2008

Note:Furnish c.c. in two daysB/opnb