Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Except obtaining the permission from the competent authority to transfer the quarry lease in favour of the fifth respondent, no valid document transferring the quarry lease was executed in respect of both the first and second leases. The fifth respondent was carrying on quarry operations totally at a different place in survey no.225/120, in respect of which no quarry lease was granted either to M/s. Blaze Granites Private Limited or in favour of the fifth respondent. The sketch clearly shows the quarry lease granted to M/s. Blaze Granites Private Limited. The fifth respondent illegally carried out quarry operations in an area situated below the middle (almost on southern side) of survey no.225/120, in respect of which no quarry lease was granted. Provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1957') prohibit all the persons from undertaking mining operations in any area without a mining lease granted under the said Act and the Rules made thereunder. The Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1966') prescribe the authority competent to grant lease and also the procedure to be followed for granting quarry lease.

As several persons applied for quarry lease in respect of the land in survey no.225/120 and other survey numbers of Yerraballigudem Village, the third respondent instructed the surveyor to prepare a sketch of the areas in respect of which lease had already been granted and the remaining area, to process those applications. At that point of time, it was found that the fifth respondent was carrying on quarry operations illegally in a place different from the place other than the area transferred, and as such, vide letter dated 6.8.2008, the third respondent requested necessary instructions from the second respondent with regard to granting dispatch permits. But, however, by proceedings dated 19.8.2008, the second respondent appears to have directed the third respondent to issue dispatch permits to the fifth respondent. Challenging the proceedings of the third respondent dated 6.8.2008, the fifth respondent filed a revision before the Government under Rule 35A of the Rules, 1966 and the said revision was disposed of by the first respondent by order dated 24.11.2008 granting permission to the second respondent to make change in the sketch appended to the lease deed. The said order was passed based on the representation of the second respondent as a mistake cropped up at the time of processing the application of the original licensee M/s. Blaze Granites Private Limited wrongly demarcating the area in the sketch over 180 meters away from the mineral deposit and at the request of the fifth respondent to rectify the execution sketch. Challenging the said order of the first respondent dated 24.11.2008, one of the applicants for grant of quarry lease M/s. Karunamai Granites filed Writ Petition No.9764 of 2009, which was disposed of by this court on 25.4.2011 holding that the revision filed by the fifth respondent is wholly misconceived and not maintainable, and that if the fifth respondent wanted rectification of the sketch, it should have first approached the second respondent, who is, admittedly, the authority competent and who has actually granted the lease in favour of the original grantee. When it was brought to the notice of this Court that the application of M/s. Karunamai Granites for grant of quarry lease in respect of the land in survey no.225/120 of Yerraballigudem Village, Nellikuduru Mandal, Warangal District (hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed land') where the fifth respondent was illegally quarrying the mineral, which was pending with the second respondent as on the date of passing of the order dated 24.11.2008 by the first respondent, was rejected subsequently on 5.6.2009 and as no notice was issued to the applicant before passing order in the purported revision, this court gave liberty to M/s. Karunamai Granites to file appeal before the Government against the order rejecting its application, and directed the Government that if any such appeal is filed, the claim of the fifth respondent for rectification of the sketch appended to the lease of the original grantee be considered afresh ignoring the earlier order of the Government dated 24.11.2008. In other words, order of the first respondent dated 24.11.2008 is held to be illegal and without any authority.

All the applications for grant of quarry lease pending before the second respondent in respect of land in survey no.225/120 were rejected on 5.6.2009 by the second respondent. So, petitioner filed an application on 24.6.2010 for grant of quarry lease in respect of land admeasuring 2.00 hectares in survey no.225/120 duly enclosing the sketch earmarking the area in respect of which the quarry lease application was submitted. As on the date of the application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease, no other application for grant of quarry lease in respect of the said area, was pending before the second respondent. As the application of the petitioner for quarry lease was not processed in accordance with law, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.28428 of 2011 against respondents 1 to 3 herein challenging their inaction. In the said Writ Petition, fourth respondent was also impleaded with the leave of the court. On 23.11.2011, the said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court directing the respondents therein to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law.

26. In the case on hand, the original lessee M/s. Blaze Granites was granted two leases with specific boundaries and survey numbers. A specific plan was also attached to the lease deeds. Therefore, the original lessee can only do quarrying operations within the boundaries as mentioned in its application and as approved by the second respondent and also in accordance with the approved plan. M/s. Blaze Granites instead of doing quarry of mining mineral within the specified area as per the lease deed and as per the approval, was conducting mining operations on the southern side of the leased area i.e. the area other than leased area. This aspect of the case is not in dispute before this Court. The officials concerned did not care to verify the same when M/s.Blaze Granites was conducting illegal quarrying operations in the land other than the leased out area. The fifth respondent, which stepped into the shoes of M/s. Blaze Granites, cannot derive any better rights than those of M/s.Blaze Granites is having. From the material on record and as per the physical verification by officials of the Mines and Geology Department, the Survey and Land Records and the fourth respondent-Tahsildar, the fifth respondent was quarrying black granite at a different place in the same survey number but not as per the sketch and not within the boundaries as approved by the competent authority. The said aspect was confirmed by the Zonal Joint Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad (third respondent in WP No.34372 of 2011) as true and correct. From the various proceedings of the Government, which are not in dispute, it is clear that the fifth respondent was conducting quarrying operations on the area other than the area on which the transfer of lease was granted. The said act of the fifth respondent is totally illegal. The fifth respondent has no authority to do illegal quarrying of minor mineral, except in accordance with the area which was in accordance with transfer lease deed. This transfer lease deed must be in accordance with law. If there is no valid transfer lease deed, the fifth respondent cannot do any mining activities. The fifth respondent claims a right to do quarrying operations as per transfer lease deed. If the transfer lease deed cannot be looked into, the fifth respondent has no authority of whatsoever to do quarrying operations.