Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1130 (AP)

Gopu Subba Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

2012-11-15

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2012
ORDER :- The subject-matter of these three writ petitions is similar, except that the survey numbers, extents and dates of proceedings are different. 2. Kolanukonda of Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District is an Inam Village, covered by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). Proceedings were initiated before the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) of the concerned area in respect of the land in Survey No.19/1 and ryotwari pattas were granted over an extent of Acs.34.57 cents of land, in favour of various persons including Agraharamdars. Part of that land was acquired by the Government and compensation was paid to the Agraharamdars. 3. The petitioners took bits of the said land in Survey No.19/1 on lease from the Agraharamdars. Since the area is covered by the hillocks, they submitted applications before the authorities of the Mines and Geology Department for grant of leases, to quarry rough stone. Orders, sanctioning lease were passed and lease deeds were executed on 1.12.2004, 13.10.2008 and 26.2.2009. Accordingly, the petitioners are carrying out mining operations, duly obtaining permission from the authorities concerned. 4. One Sri Krishna Shastry filed a revision under Section 14-A of the Act, challenging the ryotwari patta, granted in favour of a private individual in respect of a small extent of land in Survey No.19/1. The Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short 'the Commissioner') allowed the revision on 11.3.1999. The Commissioner made an observation to the effect that since the land is covered by hillocks, it should vest in the Government, by operation of Section of 2-A of the Act, and that the entire matter pertaining to the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of the village, needs a fresh consideration. 5. Krishna Shastry filed WP No.12140 of 1999 challenging the order passed by the appellate authority. The writ petition was allowed on 25.2.2003. However, the order passed in the writ petition was reversed by a Division Bench of this Court in WA No.1280 of 2003, through judgment, dated 21.12.2010. The result is that it becan1e competent and open for the authorities concerned to examine the matter pertaining to granting of ryotwari pattas, de novo. 6. The writ petition was allowed on 25.2.2003. However, the order passed in the writ petition was reversed by a Division Bench of this Court in WA No.1280 of 2003, through judgment, dated 21.12.2010. The result is that it becan1e competent and open for the authorities concerned to examine the matter pertaining to granting of ryotwari pattas, de novo. 6. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, respondent No.3 in each of the writ petitions, issued letters, dated 7.12.2011, to the effect that the existing quarry operations may be stopped, in view of the orders passed by the Commissioner, in the revision. The petitioners challenge the respective letters issued to them by respondent No.3. They submit that the effect of the observations made by the Commissioner would only enable the primary authority to reopen the proceedings and even by now, no such proceedings have been initiated. They plead that it is only when in the course of de novo enquiry, it is found that the grant of ryotwari pattas was untenable and such ryotwari pattas are cancelled, that there would be an occasion for the Government to assert exclusive rights over the land. The petitioners further submit that even if the land vests in the Government on the basis of such proceedings, the grant of lease is not prohibited and either way, it should not make any difference in the context of carrying out the mining operations, on the basis of the existing leases. 7. Separate counter-affidavits are filed by the authorities of the Revenue Department on the one hand and Mines and Geology Department on the other. The gist of their counter-affidavits is that when the Urban Development Authority for Vijayawada, Tenali and Guntur addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Tadepalli to make available the Government land, he replied stating that in view of the orders passed by the Commissioner, the entire land in Survey No.19, as regards which ryotwari pattas were granted, would vest in the Government and till the matter is finalised, it may not be advisable to continue the mining operations. Copies of the correspondence that ensued among the Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer and the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology are filed. 8. Copies of the correspondence that ensued among the Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer and the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology are filed. 8. Sri T.S. Anand, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the observations made by the Commissioner, while deciding the appeal, would at the most enable the concerned authorities to reopen the matter, duly issuing show-cause notices and it is only when the pattas are cancelled and such orders assume finality, that the Government can claim rights of ownership over the land. He further submits that even if the lands stand vested in the Government by operation or-Section 2-A of the Act, the activity undertaken by the petitioners, on the strength of a lease granted by the Government, cannot be interdicted. 9. Learned Government Pleaders for Mines and Geology and Revenue, on the other hand, submit that though the leases granted in favour of the petitioners are in force, it is not at all permissible for them to continue the operations, in view of the specific stand taken by the authorities of the Revenue Department. 10. The petitioners took different extents of land in Survey No.19/1 on lease from the respective Agraharamdars, who were granted ryotwari pattas under the Act. The pattas granted to the lessors of the petitioners were not challenged before any authority. On the other hand, part of the land covered by the pattas was acquired by the Government and compensation was also paid to the pattadars. It is only in one of the revisions, that arose in respect of a small bit of land in Survey No.19/1, that the Commissioner expressed the view that the impact of Section 2-A of the Act vis-a-vis the land must be examined and that de novo enquiry be conducted. The effort made by the person, who preferred the revision i.e., Krishna Shastry to set at naught, the observation of the Commissioner, did not fructify. A Division Bench of this Court upheld the observation. 11. With the observation made by the Commissioner becoming final, it may be competent for the concerned authority in the Revenue Department, to reopen the matter and to conduct de novo enquiry. It is obvious that notices must be issued to the persons, who were granted pattas, indicating the reasons as to why the pattas granted in their favour, be not cancelled. That eventuality did not take place as yet. It is obvious that notices must be issued to the persons, who were granted pattas, indicating the reasons as to why the pattas granted in their favour, be not cancelled. That eventuality did not take place as yet. It is only when the pattas are cancelled and the land vested in the Government, that the lessors of the petitioners would cease to hold any rights of ownership over the land. As long as such developments have not taken place, there does not exist any justification or basis for the stoppage of quarrying operations. 12. Assuming that the land would vest, on a future date, with the Government by operation of Section 2-A of the Act, the activity undertaken by the petitioners would not get prohibited. In the context of granting of mining lease, it hardly makes any difference whether the land is owned by the Government or a private individual. The parameters for grant of the mining lease are totally different from those relating to grant of patta. The principal objective happens to be the one of collection of seigniorage fee. 13. The effort of the respondents appears to be to make over the land to the Urban Development Authority, by treating it as owned by the Government. In its present state of affairs, the land cannot be put to any such use, since it is covered by hillocks. The interests of the respondents can be protected by directing that the petitioners shall not undertake mining operations below the ground level. 14. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed and the orders impugned therein are set aside. It is, however, directed that the petitioners shall not carry on mining operations, below the ground level upon the leased land. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these writ petitions stand disposed of.