Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Avula Vijayamma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 February, 2022
Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
Writ Petition No.5985 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in proposing to issue Mining lease in favour of the 4th respondent in the lands in Sy.Nos.10, 49, 56/1 and 39 admeasuring Ac.7.73 cents , Ac.6.84 cents, Ac.9.38 cents and Ac.10.07 cents totaling to Ac.34.02 cents situated at Jogipalli Village of Sydapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District in spite of the legal notice dated 31.07.2020 issued by the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to respondent authorities.
2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:
(a) The petitioner filed C.M.A.No.11 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nellore (Estate Abolition Appellate Tribunal, Nellore) against the orders passed by the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, SPSR Nellore District. During the pendency of the civil disputes, the 4th respondent, Vigneswara Minerals and some others have made application before the Tahsildar, Sydapuram Mandal for issuance of NOC in respect of subject lands covered under C.M.A.No.11 of 2015. The Tahsildar, Sydapuram knowing fully well about the issue of the civil dispute, issued NOC with false report and recommended to the 3rd respondent for grant of mining lease for Mica, Quartz and Feldspar.
(b) In turn, the 3rd respondent without verification and conducting enquiry into the correctness of the NOC issued by the Tahsildar, forwarded 2 the mining lease proposals to the 2nd respondent and the issue is pending before the 2nd respondent. Since the subject lands are under dispute before the competent Civil Court, it is not just on the respondent authorities to issue mining lease in favour of the 4th respondent and others, for it will lead to multiplicity of the proceedings. The petitioner coming to know that the 2nd respondent is likely to issue orders of mining lease in favour of the above mentioned firms, in which case the civil appeal will be otiose, issued legal notice dated 31.07.2019 to the respondent authorities calling upon them not to grant any mining lease either in favour of the 4th respondent or anybody. Despite the same, the respondent authorities are making hectic efforts to issue mining lease in favour of the 4th respondent and others.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed counter with the following averments:
(a) The 4th respondent filed two applications for grant of quarry lease for Mica, Quartz and Feldspar over an extent of Ac.6.84 Cents in Sy.No.49 and Ac.9.38 cents in Sy.No.56/1 of Jogipalli Village, Sydapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District for 20 years and another application was filed by M/s. Vigneswara Minerals, Managing Partner Sri A.Srinivasulu for Ac.12.32 cents in Sy.No.39 of Jogipalli Village on 03.07.2017 and 06.01.2018 respectively and the 3rd respondent requested the Tahsildar, Sydapuram to furnish report on the classification and availability of land for grant of lease in respect of three applications.3
(b) The Tahsildar, Sydapuram vide letter Rc.B.394/2017 dated 25.11.2017 reported that the total extent of Sy.No.49 is Ac.6.84 cents which was entered in favour of one Aduru Vengaiah as per fair adangal register. But the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Nellore vide S.R.No.1, 12, 13, 15, 15(1)/67 dated 02.09.2016 passed the order treating the classification of the land in Sy.No.49 of Ac.6.84 cents as Mining Poramboke Land. It is submitted that the land is a vacant on ground, there are no valuable trees or permanent structures or electrical or telephone lines in the land applied for by the applicant. There are no residential habitations within the radius of two kilometers from the land in question. There are mining pits in the land applied for. A1 notice has been published in the village and no objections were received for grant of mining lease. Therefore, there was no objection for Sy.No.49 of Jogipalli Village to be proposed for mining lease.
(c) Similar is the case with the land in extent of Ac.9.38 cents in Sy.No.56-1 of Jogipalli Village and therefore, there was no objection for proposing the land for mining lease.
(d) So far as 5.000 Hectares of land in S.No.39 of Jogipalli Village is concerned, as per the letter in Rc.B.83/2018 dated 10.04.2018 of Tahsildar, Sydapuram, the said land is part of the total extent of land of Ac.17.89 cents in Sy.No.39 of Jogipalli Village which is classified as Mycagani Poramboke as per Adangal. The said land is covered by old mining pits and also covered with a shrub growth. There are no permanent structures, current lines in the said land. It is at a distance of 2 Kms from Jogipalli 4 main village. There are no objections received. The Joint Collector issued orders in S.R.Nos.1, 12, 13, 15, 15(1)/67 dated 02.09.2016. A petition was submitted by the Tahsildar, Sydapuram dated 10.10.2017 for rectification of certain errors in respect of the lands granted under Ryotwari Patta in S.R.Nos.1, 12, 13, 15, 15(1)/67 dated 02.09.2016 by the Joint Collector. The present NOC required for Sy.No.39 of Jogipalli Village is under rectification of the errors.
(e) Based on the recommendations of the Tahsildar, Sydapuram and after due survey and inspection by the technical officers of the office of the 3rd respondent, it was proposed to grant quarry leases (1) over an extent of Ac.2.90 cents in Sy.No.49/P of Jogipalli Village (2) over an extent of Ac.9.37 cents in Sy.No.56-1 of Jogipalli Village in favour of 4th respondent on 20.02.2020. No further orders have been received in the above subject matter from the 2nd respondent so far.
(f) The writ petition is not maintainable as an alternative and efficacious relief is available to the petitioner under Rule 35/35-A of the APMMC Rules, 2016.
(g) The writ petition is not maintainable also for the reason that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.74, Industries & Commerce (M-III) Department, dated 16.02.2002 issued orders that the lands having rich and concentrated Mineral Wealth should not be allotted for any purpose other than mining purpose. The District Collector was accordingly requested not to issue NOC for any other purpose in respect of the lands having rich and 5 concentrated Mineral Wealth. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. The 4th respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition contending thus:
(a) The petitioner filed the writ petition on the presumption that the mining lease is going to be issued in favour of this respondent in the land in Sy.Nos.10, 49, 56/1 and 39 admeasuring Ac.7.73 cents, Ac.6.84 cents, Ac.9.38 cents and Ac.10.07 cents respectively totaling Ac.34.02 cents in Jogipalli Village of Sydapuram Mandal.
(b) It is a fact that Aduri Sundarayya and others have filed a petition before the Settlement Officer-cum-Joint Collector for issuance of Ryotwari patta under Section 15(1) of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948. It is also the fact that by virtue of an order dated 02.09.2016, the Settlement Officer has granted Ryotwari patta in Sy.Nos.1, 3/2, 43, 55, 36, 38, 50/1, 15 & 10 admeasuring Ac.88.41 cents, however, in so far as Sy.Nos.2, 3/1, 33, 41, 42, 49, 56/1, 35, 37, 39 & 40 totaling an extent of Ac.147.69 cents is concerned, the claim was rejected and it was declared that those lands are mining lands. The writ petition mentioned lands were thus declared as mining lands and therefore, the writ petitioner has no locus standi to question the same, as there is no Ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioner.
Since the lands are vested in the Government, the same shall be governed by the provisions of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. Even assuming that minerals are deposited in the land belonging to the private 6 persons, still the provisions of the Act are applicable since the minerals are considered to be National Wealth and as such writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
(c) As per the orders of the Settlement Officer, it is clear that most of the area in the village is a mining area and in an extent of Ac.191.50 cents, mining land is there and it has been recorded in the revenue records and held that they are not private patta lands nor under cultivation. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.
5. The petitioner filed reply affidavit as against the counter filed by respondents 1 to 3 denying the material averments in the counter. It is contended that the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer vide order dated 02.09.2016 rejected the claim in respect of Sy.Nos.49 and 56/1 and some other survey numbers. Against the said order, C.M.A.No.11/2017 has been filed and pending before the learned Principal District Judge-cum-Estate Abolition Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the classification of land in Sy.Nos.49 & 56 cannot be treated as mining lands. Further, within the radius of ¼ KM there is a school surrounded with residential houses. The A1 notice was prepared in the office and therefore, nobody knows about it. Hence, the question of submitting objections does not arise. The respondents obtained signatures of some unconcerned persons and brought A1 notice into existence. When once appeal is pending against the order of the Joint Collector treating the land as Mining Poramboke, the said order has no relevance. Therefore, the said order shall be kept in abeyance. 7
6. Heard Sri G.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology representing the respondents 1 to 3, and Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for 4th respondent.
7. Learned counsel of either side have reiterated their pleadings in their respective arguments. While it is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that since the order of the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Nellore treating the subject lands as Mining Poramboke lands is under challenge in C.M.A.No.11/2016 before the learned Principal District Judge-cum-Estate Abolition Appellate Tribunal, Nellore, the official respondents cannot make a proposal to lease out those lands in favour of 4th respondent, in oppugnation, the respondents would argue that the Joint Collector has clearly held that the subject lands are the Mining Poramboke lands vested in the Government and therefore, the official respondents can lease out the same to 4th respondent. If at all the petitioner feels aggrieved, she can seek a stay order from the concerned Civil Court, but she cannot file writ petition.
8. In the light of the above respective arguments, the point for consideration is:
Whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow?
9. Point: I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. A perusal of the order in S.R.Nos.1, 12, 13, 15, 15(1)/67 dated 02.09.2016 passed by the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer of SPSR 8 Nellore District would show that one Aduru Vengaiah and others filed claim petitions for grant of Ryotwari pattas in respect of the lands covered by different survey numbers including the writ petition mentioned lands covered by Sy.Nos.10, 49, 56/1 & 39. Pending the said claim, it appears, Aduru Vengaiah one of the claimants died and the present writ petitioner Avula Vijayamma was added as one of his legal representatives. The Joint Collector allowed the claim of the claimants in respect of some of the survey numbers and rejected in respect of some other survey numbers. So far as writ petition mentioned Sy.Nos.49, 56/1 and 39 are concerned, the claim was rejected treating the lands covered by those survey numbers as Mining Poramboke lands. So far as the land in Sy.No.10 covered by writ petition is concerned, the claim was allowed and Patta was granted to one of the claimants namely Aduru Balakrishnaiah, s/o. Siddhaiah. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the claimants including the present writ petitioner, have filed C.M.A.No.11/2016 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge-cum-Estate Abolition Appellate Tribunal, Nellore and the same is said to be pending. It appears, no interim order like stay has been granted by the Appellate Tribunal.
10. While so, since the Joint Collector rejected the claim in respect of some lands mentioned in his order on the ground that they are classified as Mining Poramboke lands, the official respondents on the application of the 4th respondent herein, proposed to grant quarry lease in an extent of Ac.2.90 cents in S.No.49/P and Ac.9.37 cents in S.No.56-1 of Jogipalli 9 Village. In this regard, the 3rd respondent obtained NOC from the Tahsildar, Sydapuram and submitted proposals before the 2nd respondent who is the Director of Mines & Geology, Vijayawada. At this stage, questioning those proposals, the instant writ petition is filed.
11. Having regard to the fact that the classification by the Joint Collector that the subject land is a Mining Poramboke and thereby the claimants are not entitled to Ryotwari patta is under challenge before the Appellate Tribunal, in my considered view, it is apposite to direct the Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal within a timeframe as the appeal is sufficiently old one, to enable the mining and revenue authorities to take further steps in the matter depending upon the said order.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Principal District Judge-cum-Estate Abolition Appellate Tribunal, Nellore to dispose of the C.M.A.No.11/2016 on merits expeditiously, but not later than two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties to the appeal shall cooperate with the Tribunal for smooth disposal of the appeal. Till then the respondent authorities shall not grant mining lease in respect of subject lands to anybody. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending for consideration shall stand closed.
_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 11.02.2022 KRK/MVA 10 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO Writ Petition No.5985 of 2021 11th February, 2022 krk