IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR BETWEEN B.Lakshmi Devi AND WRIT PETITION No. 32186 of 2014 ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner questions the proceedings in the nature of a certificate under Section 3(1) of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, (for short, “the Act”), dated 17.09.2014, issued by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool to the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool. The averments of the petitioner states that she was the owner of land to an extent of Ac.1- 25 cents in survey No.633/A1 of Ramallakota Village, Veldurthy Mandal, Kurnool District, and on 19.02.1997 she had sold the same to S.Sriramulu, who is her paternal uncle, for an amount of Rs.25,000/-. Petitioner states that since that date, she is not concerned with the said property. However, based on the ground that petitioner’s name is shown in the revenue records, the show cause notice, dated 12.12.2013, was issued to her informing that respondent No.6 along with the Tahsildar and Village Revenue Officer had jointly inspected the land and on finding that the illegal iron ore mining was carried on the said land and estimated quantity of 7285 metric tones of Iron Ore was illegally excavated by the petitioner, she was asked to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.64,10,624/- together with royalty and price of 604 metric tones should not be recovered from her. Petitioner submitted an explanation to the show cause notice on 25.12.2013. It is further stated that thereafter she has not been heard of any orders being passed including any demand notice as alleged is served on her. However, she came to know of the Certificate issued under the Act seeking to recover total amount of Rs.64,10,624/.-. Hence, questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Learned Government Pleader, who has received instructions from the Deputy Director of Mines, states that petitioner’s explanation was considered and on finding that she has not executed any registered document in favour of the said S.Sriramulu, as stated by her in the explanation to the show cause notice, the said explanation was rejected and a demand notice was issued on 22.03.2014 for recovery of amount under the Act.
4. There is no reference in the instructions as to passing of any order after consideration of petitioner’s explanation. There is also no averment that the demand notice was served on the petitioner. If really, the petitioner has sold the said land, the revenue record would reflect at least to the extent of showing that the purchaser is in possession and it was open for the respondents to have notified the said purchaser also so as to verify whether the land is really sold by the petitioner to the said purchaser. However, without conducting proper enquiry and without passing any order in pursuance of the said show cause notice, the proceedings under the Act based on the demand notice appear to have been initiated. Since the petitioner has not been served with any order passed, in pursuance of the show cause notice, nor was served with the demand notice, it is not proper to expect the petitioner to avail the alternative remedies available to her under the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 and the Rules thereunder.
5. In the circumstances, therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings are set aside giving liberty to the respondents to notify the said purchaser viz., S.Sriramulu to receive an explanation from him and also verify the revenue records, as observed above, and then pass appropriate orders with reference to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner and take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 10, 2014 LMV