Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S. Aurelia Laterite Mining Pvt. Ltd. ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its ... on 20 December, 2024
APHC010093272017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 28583/2017
Between:
M/s. Aurelia Laterite Mining Pvt. Ltd. Rep. By Its Executive ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)
2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following Order:
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
".....to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 for not implementing the orders in G.O.Ms.No.74, Industries & Commerce (MI) Department, dated 06.02.2002 and Memo No.18167/MI(S)/2000-2, dated 28.03.2001 with regarding to the mining lease over an extent of Ac.166.97 cents Un Surveyed Hill Portion (USHP) of Vanthada Village, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District, granted vide G.O.Ms.No.40, Industries & Commerce Department, dated 01.02.2014 is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to follow 2 G.O.Ms.No.74, Industries & Commerce (MI) Department, dated 06.02.2002 and Memo No.18167/MI(S)/2000-2, dated 28.03.2001......."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh has granted mining lease for laterite over an extent of Ac.166.97 cents in Un-Surveyed Hill Portions (USHP) of Vanthada Village, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari district in favour of Sri S.Sobhan Babu vide G.O.Ms.No.283, Industries and Commerce (M.III) Department, dated 27.10.2007. Thereafter, the lessee submitted application dated 17.02.2012 for transfer of the said mining lease in favour of the petitioner company. The erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms.No.40, Industries & Commerce (M-IV) Department dated 01.02.2014 passed orders transferring the mining lease in favour of petitioner company under Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 for the un-expired portion of the mining lease period i.e. up to 16.09.2028, subject to submission of indemnity bond by the transferee, i.e. the petitioner herein. While things stood thus, the petitioner received a show-cause notice dated 20.07.2016, alleging lapses committed in violation of the mining lease. The petitioner submitted explanation to the show cause notice and the 1st respondent after hearing the petitioner, passed final orders dated 06.12.2016 determining the mining lease. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3634 of 2017 and this Court has passed interim orders, directing the respondents not to create any third party rights over the subject land. While so, the revenue department is proposing to issue D-Form pattas to some third parties. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a 3 representation dated 22.06.2017 to respondents 1 to 3 by submitting a copy of interim order of this Court and also a Memo No.18617/MI(2)/2000-2, dated 28.03.2001. Without considering the same, the 7th respondent conducted survey on 11.08.2017 with the help of officials of District Survey and Land Records, East Godavari and even the respondents 1 to 3 did not apprised the orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.74, Industries and Commerce (MI) Department, dated 06.02.2002 to respondents 4 to 7. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. This Court, vide order dated 24.08.2017, has granted interim order, directing the respondents not to grant assignment pattas by following the orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.74, Industries and Commerce(MI) Department, dated 28.03.2001 with regard to the mining lease over an extent of Acs.166.97 cents of Un-Surveyed Hill Portion (USHP) of Vanthada Village, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District, granted vide G.O.Ms.No.40, Industries and Commerce department, dated 01.02.2014.
4. The 7th respondent filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations made in the writ petition. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the Vanthada Village is a sub-plan village of Prathipadu Mandal and all tribal people are residing in the village by eking their livelihood by occupying the Gap Area between the Reserve Forest and the Revenue land by raising Cashew and the tribal people demanding for issue of 'D' Form Pattas for the lands under their occupation for the last several years and requesting to demarcate to create 4 new sub-division to this D.Form pattas issued earlier. The total extent of the area is 446 Acres. Out of the said area, Survey Nos.7 to 27 existing in an extent of Acs.160.95 cents and the remaining Acs.285.05 is un-surveyed hill portion (USHP). Out of the same, Acs.166.97 granted mining lease to Sagina Sobhanababu, which is transmitted to petitioner herein. It is further stated that that the petitioner filed W.P.No.3634 of 2017 without making the Revenue as party to the petition. Further, as per the records, the total extent of land available in Forest Enclosure of Vanthada Village is Acs.446.00 cents and the land in an extent of Acs.160.95 cents is the patta land and remaining land is Un-Surveyed Hill Portion (USHP). The lands in an extent of Acs.285.05 cents which is classified as Un-Surveyed Hill Portion, the tribals have raised Cashew plants and they are making their livelihood and they were given with D-Form Patta and they were doing cultivation over the said lands and having original D-Form Pattas of the year 1992. Hence, in view of illegal mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner claiming the lease by way of transfer from S.Sobhan Babu and in view of the irregularities claiming by the lease holders, the mining lease is determined by the 1st respondent vide Proc.No.7567/R2- 1/2011, dated 06.12.2016. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
5
6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the Government has issued Memo No.18617/MI(2)/2000-2, dated 28.03.2001 regarding issuance of D.Form Pattas, instructions has been issued to all the District Collectors and the Mandal Revenue Officers instructing not to grant pattas in mineral bearing areas and the Government has also issued G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 06.02.2002 requesting the Director of Mines and Geology to inform the District Collectors not to issue NOCs for lands in mineral bearing areas. He further submits that, even the petitioner has brought to the notice of respondents 1 to 3 through representation dated 22.06.2017 about the orders passed by the Government, they are not taking any action. Due to the same, the respondents 5 to 7 are proceeding further in the matter for granting pattas, which is violation of orders passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.74, Industries and Commerce(MI) Department, dated 06.02.2002 and Memo No.18617/MI(2)/2000-2, dated 28.03.2001. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
7. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, as per the directions of this Court dated 24.08.2017, the respondents are not taking any further steps in the scheduled property lands. He further submits that the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner is not legal as the area to an extent of Acs.166.97 cents is classified as Un-Surveyed Hill Portion (USHP) and the 6 classification for the subject land is not done as on 1958 and the then Tahsildar issued NOC without obtaining any clarification from the competent authority, which is in violation of all norms. He further submits that the survey team has completed the survey work between the Forest and regular village boundary gap area by creating the new survey numbers 249 to 284 along with the sub-division statement and combined sketches on 28.06.2017. He further submits that, the area other than the mining lease in favour of the petitioner, the tribals are doing cultivation which is not the subject land of the mining lease area and in the said area, the survey was conducted and sub-divided. Further, the Revenue Authorities are competent for issue of D.Form Pattas in the eligible beneficiaries as per assignment laws. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that, nothing survives in the present writ petition and the same may be closed.
8. Perused the record.
9. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the Government has issued vide G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 16.02.2002 with the following directions:
"It has been brought to the notice of the Government that House site pattas have been granted in certain districts on lands which are having rich/rare mineral wealth. Allotment of Mineral rich areas for such general purposes has an adverse impact on industrial growth and Government revenues. Since minerals are location specific and are essential for the industrial development of the State it has been decided that lands having rich/concentrated Mineral Wealth should not be allotted for any purpose other than mining.
The Director of Mines & Geology is therefore requested to take necessary action to identify the lands/cluster of lands having a concentration of Mineral Wealth and inform all the District collectors 7 about the occurrences of such minerals. The District Collectors are requested not to issue NOCs for such identified lands for any purpose other than mining."
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that, the tribals are making their cultivation over the land claiming their rights by way of D-Form pattas since 1992 and they are in possession and making their livelihood by Cashew Plantation. The subject lands are in possession of the tribal for long time since 1992 and under the pretext of orders of this Court, the petitioner is claiming the rights over the remaining portion of Un-Surveyed Hill Portion (USHP) other than the extent of Ac.166.97 cents. Hence, this Court found no merit in the instant writ petition and devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 20-12-2024 BMS