IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.34811 of 2014 BETWEEN Lega Ram Mohan Reddy.
AND ... PETITIONER State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. P.NAAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES & GEOOGY (TG) GP FOR REVENUE (TG) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner, who claims to be a lease holder from the assignees for the purpose of grazing on the land assigned, has questioned the orders issued by the Collector dated 19.05.2014 directing the fifth respondent to issue way bills in pursuance of the Government Memo.No.4002/SPIU&SAND/A2/2014- 1 dated 01.04.2014. Petitioner has questioned the said order, firstly, on the ground that the Collector has no jurisdiction in the matter and that it is for the Government to issue permission for de-casting the sand in terms of G.O.Ms.No.186 Industries and Commerce (Mines-1) Department dated 17.12.2013.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner’s lease is subsisting, any such direction would greatly prejudice the petitioner, as petitioner would not get any alternative land for the purpose of grazing of animals. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner raised objections before the second respondent but they were not considered. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader, who brought to the notice of this Court that the Government has already considered the said issue and under its memo dated 01.04.2014 confirmed that the land was assigned to eligible assignees so that they can cultivate the land and make a living. However, if the lands are sand cast and become unfit for cultivation, the whole purpose of giving the land to the landless poor becomes infructuous and since de-casting of sand requires money, which cannot be pooled by the landless poor persons, permission was granted for de-casting of sand and the District Collector was requested to take necessary action in the matter.
In accordance with the said memo, the District Collector issued the impugned proceedings dated 19.05.2014.
4. I am, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of de-casting cannot be passed by the Collector, as such and on the contrary, it appears that the Government granted necessary permission and directed permits to be issued and the District Collector was requested to take necessary action accordingly and in accordance there with the impugned order is passed by the Collector.
5. So far as petitioner’s right as a lessee of the assigned land is concerned, there is no document produced to substantiate the lease and in any case, taking lease of an assigned land also amounts to alienation of assigned land, which is not permissible and cannot be recognized by this Court and thereby, it cannot be said that any right of the petitioner is affected. Apart from those aspects, none of the assignees are parties to this writ petition.
The writ petition is clearly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 19, 2014 DSK