WRIT PETITION 24876 of 2016 on 11 October 2012

Conclusion

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the[Constitution][ of][ India,]

seeking the following relief;

declaringtheorderspassedbythe3respondentvideProceedingsNo.2519/01/2012,dated3.7.2015determiningtheleasevideProceedingsNo.2519/M4/2012,datedgrantedtothepetitioner 11.10.2012 and the Orders passed the 2”"' respondent vide ProceedingsD.Dis.ProceedingsNo.19007/R4-2/Appeal/2015,dated25.6.2016dismissing the Appeai fiied by the petitioner dated 20.8.2015 and therebyconfirming the Orders dated 3.7.2015 passed by the 3^^ respondentas'^i^hout jurisdiction and set aside both the Orders of the”2& 3 respondents and pass such other or further orders

2. Facts of the case in brief are that thepetitioner was granted quarrylease for road metal and building stone over an extent of Ac. 14.170 hectaresi.e. 35 acres in Sy.No.229 of Puduru Village, Kurnool Mandal and Districtforaperiodof ten years commencing from15.03.2013to14.03.2023videproceedings No.5415/M4/2010, dated 15.03.2013, by the 4'^ respondent. The4*^ respondent has issued the said mining lease after following the dueprocedure by obtaining “No objection” from the Superintending Engineer,Irrigation Circle, Kurnool.Since then, the petitioner has been doing miningoperations in the said land.

While so, basing on the complaint filed by some third parties stating thatthey are the pattadars of the land which is the subject matter of the quarrylease granted in favour of the1®^ petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officerprepared a report vide Rc.D556/2013, dated 14.08.2013 addressingto theDistrict Collector stating that the lands are patta lands.But, a perusal of thesaid report shows that the RDO has only verified the registered documentsexecuted in favour of the third parties.Further, the revenue records disclosethat the land is shows as KC Canal A-Class Poramboke.

Aggrievedby the saidreportof the RDO, the1petitionerfiledW.P.No.15883 of 2014 and some third parties filed W.P.No.19344 of 2013, whereby the Composite High Court has directed therespondentto lookintoall the aspects with the assistance of revenue authorities[and][ take][ an]appropriate reasoned decision in accordance with law,[after][ hearing]all theinterested parties.Till now, the 3^^ respondent has[not][ passed any][ orders]pursuant to the said direction.

Since the 1petitioner could not get the possession of the property[and]conduct the mining operations, he did not pay the dead[rents.]Thereafter, thenotice No.2519/Q1/2012,dated3^^ respondent has issued a show-cause10.04.2015 demanding the 1®* petitioner to pay advanced[dead]rent for theThe1®‘petitioner has submittedfinancial years 2014-15 and2015-16.explanation to the 3'^ respondent.But the 3^^ respondent[without][ taking][ into]account the facts and circumstances as well as pendency[of][ writ][ petitions,][ has]determined the lease vide proceedings dated 03.07.2015.Aggrieved by theonsame,the1petitioner preferred appeal before the 2^^ respondent20.08.2015.But, without taking into the account the[objections][ in][ the][ appeal,]ndthe2respondent has passed the impugned order dated 25.06.2016[and]dismissed the appeal on the ground that the land is[a][ poramboke][ land][ and][ the]Hence theconduct the mining operations, he did not pay the dead[rents.]Thereafter, thenotice No.2519/Q1/2012,dated3^^ respondent has issued a show-cause10.04.2015 demanding the 1®* petitioner to pay advanced[dead]rent for theThe1®‘petitioner has submittedfinancial years 2014-15 and2015-16.explanation to the 3'^ respondent.But the 3^^ respondent[without][ taking][ into]account the facts and circumstances as well as pendency[of][ writ][ petitions,][ has]determined the lease vide proceedings dated 03.07.2015.Aggrieved by theonsame,the1petitioner preferred appeal before the 2^^ respondent20.08.2015.But, without taking into the account the[objections][ in][ the][ appeal,]ndthe2respondent has passed the impugned order dated 25.06.2016[and]dismissed the appeal on the ground that the land is[a][ poramboke][ land][ and][ the]Hence the1petitioner did not have any vested right for grant[of][ lease,]present writ petition is filed.present writ petition is filed.

3. This Court vide order dated 27.09.2016 has grantedinterimorderwhich reads as under:

“Pending further orders, no mining lease in the subject land shall be grantedby respondents to any third parties. ”

4. The 4‘^ respondent filed counter. While denying the contents of the writpetition, he has stated that, the order passed by the 3'^ respondentisinaccordance with law and rules as per the lease deed conditions and thereISno violation of the Rules.In fact, thepetitioner failed to submit any validgrounds for non-payment of dead rent for the year 2014-15 and 2015-16 andfor non-submissionof quarterly returns.The1®‘ petitioner also failed toproduce any record or evidence in support of his claim that he is not havingphysical possessionof the leased area and couldnot operate thearea.Further stated that the 1®‘ petitioner directly approached this Court withoutexhausting the alternative remedy i.e. the revision provisions available underRule 35-A of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral ConcessionRules1966.Hence, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. HeardlearnedcounselforthepetitionersandlearnedAssistantGovernment Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for the respondents.Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for the respondents.

6. Perused the material available on record.

7. On hearing the submissions made by both learned counselfor thepetitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader and considering thefacts and circumstances of the case, it appears that, in the absence of a finalresolutionontheownershipissue,andthe1petitioner’slegitimatepetitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader and considering thefacts and circumstances of the case, it appears that, in the absence of a finalresolutionontheownershipissue,andthe1petitioner’slegitimate •

grievances regarding the inability to pay dead rent[due][ to][ the][ land][ dispute,][ this]Court is of the opinion that the termination of the[mining][ lease][ was][ premature]and unjust and the3"'^ respondent has passed the impugnedordervideproceedings No.2519/Q1/2012, dated 03.07.2015, in a[hurried][ manner][ without]proper appreciation of the explanation dated 02.05.2015[submitted][ by][ the]1Stpetitioner and without giving any opportunity of hearing[the]1®‘ petitioner,whichisinviolationof principles andnaturaljustice.So,the impugnedproceedings are liable to be set aside.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of setting[aside][ the][ impugned]proceedingsNo.2519/Q1/2012,dated03.07.2015issuedbythe3rclrespondent and the matteris remanded back to the3'"'^respondentforreconsideration, in accordance with law, taking into[account][ the][ directions][ of]the High Court and resolving the issue of land ownership[as][ per the][ revenue]records, and pass appropriate orders within a period[of][ three][ (03)][ months][ from]the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There[shall][ be][ no][ order][ as][ to][ costs.]proceedingsNo.2519/Q1/2012,dated03.07.2015issuedbythe3rclrespondent and the matteris remanded back to the3'"'^respondentforreconsideration, in accordance with law, taking into[account][ the][ directions][ of]the High Court and resolving the issue of land ownership[as][ per the][ revenue]records, and pass appropriate orders within a period[of][ three][ (03)][ months][ from]the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There[shall][ be][ no][ order][ as][ to][ costs.]9.As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending,if[any,][ shall][ stand]closed.closed.

Sd/- K. TATA RAODEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Mines & Geology Dept.,[State][ of][ Andhra]Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur[District.]Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur[District.]

2. The Director, Mines & Geology Dept., Andhra Pradesh,[Vijayawada.]

3. The Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Andhra Pradesh,[Kurnool.]

4. The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Andhra[Pradesh,][ Kurnool.]

/

\

Vf

%

5. One CC to M/s. Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, Advocate [OPUC]

6. One CC to Sri V. Sai Kumar, Advocate[OPUC]

7. Two CCs to GP for Industries and Commerce, High Court[of][ Andhra]Pradesh, [OUT]Pradesh, [OUT]

8. Two CCs to GP for Mines and Geology, High Court of[Andhra][ Pradesh.]

[OUT]

9. Three CD Copies.

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED;06/01/2025

ORDER

WP.No.24876 of 2016

o\»m13 FEB 2025^, Curreni Secuon ^I

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS