THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 29030 OF 2008 Date: 10-09-2014 Between:
Lambadi Ram Singh and others … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department,Hyderabad and others.
… Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 29030 of 2008 O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents herein in not taking any steps for cancellation of mining lease granted to the respondent No.6 as per Lr.No.B/4784/2006, dated 25-01-2006 on the file of respondent No.5 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondent No.5 to allow the petitioners for continuing agricultural operations to an extent of Ac.5-00 guntas and Ac.02-15 guntas respectively in survey No.56 of Gollapally Village, Chengunta Mandal, Medak District by issuing fresh patta certificates to the petitioners.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleaders for respondents 1 to 5 and learned counsel for respondent No.6.
The case of the petitioners is that they are landless poor persons and eligible for assignment of government land in Survey No.56 in Gollapally Village, Chengunta Mandal, Medak District wherein, an extent of Ac.16.38 guntas of land was declared as surplus land under the provisions of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The said extent of land was allotted to five persons including the petitioners 1 and 2. The 1st petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.5-00 guntas, whereas, the 2nd petitioner was assigned Ac.2-15 guntas. They were also issued pattas by the then Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Chegunta. They were also issued pattadar passbooks and their names were recorded in the pahani patrikas up to 2007-2008. While so, they came to know that the respondent No.6 was running quarry operations in their land on the ground that the lease was granted in his favour. The petitioners approached the respondent No.4 and submitted a representation seeking his intervention. Basing upon the said representation, the respondent No.5 submitted report to the respondent No.4 on 25-01-2006 stating that the petitioners voluntarily gave resignation and patta cancellation proceedings were issued by the then MRO on 07-02-2000. But the petitioners state that no notice was issued before cancelling their pattas, and the respondents are not taking steps for cancellation of mining lease granted in favour of respondent No.6. Hence, the present writ petition was filed.
The respondent No.4 filed counter affidavit stating that as per the records of the Tahsildar, Chegunta Mandal, the then Mandal Revenue Inspector (MRI) reported on 19-12-2000 stating that the land in survey No.56 in which the petitioners and four others were allotted land as per the assignment rules and handed over the possession of the land since they were not cultivating that land and they were not in physical possession of the same. The report of the MRI indicates that the said land is hill and rocky area and recommended for cancellation of pattas issued earlier and simultaneously also recommended for grant of mining lease with the consent of the assignees including the petitioners. The patta certificates were cancelled by the then Tahsildar on 07- 02-2000 as per rules. Basing on the report submitted by the then Tahsildar, Chegunta Mandal, a letter was addressed to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Medak on 25-06-2007 by enclosing the MRO’s report and requested to take action as per the report of MRO. The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Medak issued proceedings on 15-12-2003 according permission for quarrying operations to the respondent No.6 for a period up to 26-02-2022. Respondent No.4 states that lease granted in favour of the 6th respondent after relinquishment of rights of the petitioners was done in accordance with rules only.
The respondent No.5 also filed separate counter affidavit stating that the 1st petitioner and four others are not in physical possession of the land, though they were given patta certificates. The MRI reported that the land in survey No.56 is hilly and rocky area and recommended for cancellation of atta certificates. Thereafter, the lease was granted in favour of the 6th respondent for unexpired portion of lease period up to 26-02-2022. It was also stated that there was no cultivation from 07-02-2001 on wards and the MRI, Chegunta visited the land on 03-10-2013 and reported that since last four years the pits were dug and covered by bushes inside the water.
The petitioners filed reply affidavit denying the averments made by the respondents 4 and 5. They stated that their huts were put on fire and they approached the revenue authorities for getting duplicate copies of certificates. Their signatures were taken on papers and they might have been used for the purpose of creating a false document of relinquishment. The so- called voluntary resignation advanced by the respondent No.5 is not correct. No notices were issued before cancelling the pattas and the petitioners deny the voluntary resignation allegedly made by the petitioners.
Be that as it may, from the counter of respondents 4 and 5, it is clear that based on the relinquishment made by the petitioners on 07-02-2001, the proposals were made for grant of quarry lease and quarry lease was granted in favour of the respondent No.6 for un-expired portion of lease period up to 26-02-2022 and GO Ms.No.299 was issued by Industries and Commerce (M III) Department, dated 16-10-2003 for a period up to 24-10-2011. As on today the respondent No.6 has been in occupation of the land, but could not continue the quarrying operations in view of interim directions granted by this Court. The land, which was assigned to the petitioners appears to be rocky area, which is unfit for cultivation. There is no evidence to show that the petitioners cultivated at any point of time after assignment of the land in their favour. Probably, the land might have been useful for quarrying operations and accordingly, the authorities having taken a decision to grant lease in favour of respondent No.6. The action of respondents cannot be found fault with, but it is seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they were never issued any document of relinquishment put forward by the official respondents. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, since the land which was assigned in favour of the petitioners was unfit for cultivation, liberty is given to the petitioners to make appropriate representation to the respondent No.5 for assignment of cultivable land and the respondents 4 and 5 shall consider the said representation in accordance with law within a period of six (06) months from the date of their application and pass appropriate orders there on. The respondent No.6 shall continue the mining operation pursuant to the mining lease granted in his favour in accordance with the provisions of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. In consequence, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J.
Date: 10-09-2014 nvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.29030 of 2008 Date: 10-09-2014 nvl