Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 495 (AP)

M. Veera Reddy v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-08-04

G.SHYAM PRASAD

body2020
JUDGMENT G. Shyam Prasad, J. - This is a Writ of Mandamus sought for declaring the action of the 3rd respondent issued proceedings vide Procs.No.543/Sand/ 2019, dated 04.07.2020 excavating of the sand in patta land to an extent of Ac.1.44 cents in Sy.No. 46, Pidathalapudi Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.70 & 86 by the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioners grievance are that due to proceedings referred above, the sand is being transported to the agricultural fields by the petitioners situated in Sy.Nos. 4/3, 48/1, 226, 113, 57/4, 46, 47, 224/18, 224/4, 167, 53/2, 105/4, 224/56, 222/4, 202/1, 118/1, 154/2A, 224/5A, 47/1, 49/1A is contrary to G.O.Ms.No. 70 & 86 by the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966. 3. The contention of the petitioners are that the respondents without following procedure as prescribed under G.O.Ms.No. 70 & 86 by the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 are extracting sand by engaging J.C.B. The sand excavation shall be as per Rules 23(1)(a) of Water Land and Tree Rules, 2004 or any subsequent rules/ amendments to be issued by Government from time to time. The reliance also was placed in G.O.Ms.No.71 dt. 04.09.2019, which is amendment to the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1996 as per Rule 1(a) (i) Sand extraction shall be permitted in notified over exploited areas except for local use in villages or towns bordering the Streams for bonafide purpose, (ii) The sand extraction shall be as per Rules 23(1)(a) of Water Land and Tree Rules, 2004. 4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the Petitioners and Respondents. 5. Prima facie there appears to be questions of facts to be decided in this matter the petitioners only can claim relier under Article 226 of Constitution of India, whenever there is an infringement of legal right or statutory right. 6. The case of the petitioners are that the patta land, for which the 3rd respondent District Collector has granted permission for de-casting of sand from his patta land, which is adjacent to the land of the petitioners in an extent of Ac. 1.44 cents in Sy.No. 46 of Pidathalapudi Village, Chimakurthy Mandal. According to the petitioners one Mr. 6. The case of the petitioners are that the patta land, for which the 3rd respondent District Collector has granted permission for de-casting of sand from his patta land, which is adjacent to the land of the petitioners in an extent of Ac. 1.44 cents in Sy.No. 46 of Pidathalapudi Village, Chimakurthy Mandal. According to the petitioners one Mr. Anil Kumar and others, removing 15 feet soil digging on the earth in the patta land and subsequently digging sand in the Musi river by engaging JCBs and transporting the sand through the lands of the petitioners by damaging their crops. 7. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents are illegally extracting sand from Musi river without there being any permission from the respondents 1 to 6. The petitioners have not added the third parties as respondents, who are actually exploiting the sand from the Musi river. The said Mr. Anil Kumar and others, who are said to have been removed the 15 feet soil digging on the earth in the patta lands and subsequently digging the sand in the Musi river are not made as parties in this Writ Petition. 8. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be only against the Respondents 1 to 5, who are official respondents are granting permission for de-casting of sand in a Patta land over an extent of Ac. 1.44 cents in Sy.No. 46. 9. The learned counsel for petitioner has to clarify as to how the petition is maintainable. The further clarification is with regard to availability of alternative remedy. It is also to be clarified why the parties, who are involved in extracting the sand illegal are not made as parties in this Writ Petition. It is also to be clarified as to whether there is sufficient material to decide those facts, except the photographs and the representation submitted to the respondents' authorities. 10. On consideration of submissions of both the counsel, this court of is not inclined to go into merits without relevant material before this court. Therefore the respondents shall consider the representation of the petitioners dt. 17.07.2020 and pass appropriate orders within eight (8) weeks and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 11. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the writ petition, shall also stand closed.