Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Aithabathula Rameswara Rao vs The Union Of India on 21 August, 2024
APHC010438062023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-25
[3496]
AT AMARAVATI
WP(PIL) No.140 of 2023
Aithabathula Rameswara Rao and others ...Petitioners
Vs.
The Union of India and others ...Respondents
**********
Mr. Namburi Sreemannarayana, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Y V Anil Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. N. Ravi Prasad, Advocate for Respondent Nos.15. Mr. V. Sai Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.16. Mrs. S. Pranathi (Special Government Pleader), Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 14.
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA DATE : 21st August, 2024 PC:
The present petition had been filed challenging the proceedings, dated 11.05.2023, granting permission to two applicants, who are respondent Nos.15 & 16 in the present petition, for mining at Turakala Konda on the ground that the mining operations were permitted to be conducted in the close vicinity of a protected monument without permission from the Archeological Survey of India.
2
HCJ & VJP,J WP(PIL)_140_2023
2. The protected monument is a Buddhist ancient stupa namely Bouddha Maha Dhatu Stupa, which is situated in Sy.No.133/1 of Kodavali Village in Kakinada District. The said stupa was declared as a protected monument by the Archeological Survey of India [ASI] in terms of the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 [for short, 'the AMASR Act'] and the Rules framed thereunder.
3. It appears that before issuing the licenses to the private respondents, the Mines and Geology Department had approached the Department of Archeology for the views on the subject. The ASI responded through the communication, dated 25.03.2022, wherein it was stated that the area where the mining operations were to be permitted was situated in Sy.No.133/1 and since the technical staff of the ASI had found some more Buddhist remains (unprotected) in the vicinity at a distance of 377 meters from the proposed mining area, therefore, it was requested that the entire area had to be thoroughly surveyed and explored and in that background, it was indicated that mining leases be not considered for allotment. Despite the aforementioned information having been provided to the Mines and Geology Department, it appears that the licenses were issued and the mining was in progress.
It was in that context that this Court on 20.03.2024 observed that although in the communication dated 28.07.2023 the ASI had indicated their 3 HCJ & VJP,J WP(PIL)_140_2023 intention to survey the entire area, yet, the survey operations had not been undertaken.
It appears that now the said survey has been conducted and according to the report submitted by the ASI, there were no archeological structures or remains noticed during the survey other than the existing protected monument and the unprotected monument which stands at a distance of 377 meters from the area where mining operations are being undertaken. In the report of the ASI, it has been reflected that insofar as quarry operations are concerned, the blasting operations would not be undertaken and that the same would be conducted only through the mechanical mode.
4. In the light of the aforementioned report, learned counsel for the ASI had drawn our attention to Sections 20A and 20B of the AMASR Act.
Section 20A of the said Act envisages that the area extending to a distance of 100 meters in all directions from the protected monument is declared as a prohibited area on which no activity at all can be undertaken. The said prescribed limit of 100 meters can, however, be further extended beyond 100 meters by the Central Government on the recommendations of the Authority by way of a notification in the official Gazette.
According to Section 20B, the area beyond 100 meters, upto 200 meters, is declared as a regulated area on which also, learned counsel for the ASI states, no activity is permitted.
4
HCJ & VJP,J WP(PIL)_140_2023
5. In the instant case, a specific statement has been made that the protected monument as also the unprotected monument is far beyond the limits prescribed under Sections 20A or 20B of the AMASR Act and, therefore, the mining permissions granted by the official respondents do not in any manner affect the excavated Buddhist sites which are declared as protected/unprotected and, therefore, to that extent it is stated that there has been no violation in granting permissions to private respondent Nos.15 to 19.
6. In view of the specific stand taken by the Archeological Survey of India, we do not wish to proceed any further with the present proceedings, which are accordingly closed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Vjl