IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY. THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 4979 OF 2009 Between: 1. B.V.Subba Rao(Died), S/o.Subba Rayudu R/o.40-814-10-5, Nehru Nagar, Kurnool. 2. B.V.Surya Kiran Kumar, S/o Late B.V.Subba Rao, Age 46 years, Occ Business, R/o of 40-814-5, Nehru Nagar, Kurnool, Kurnool District. (Petitioner No.2 is brought on record as L.R of the deceased of the sole petitioner as per the Court order dt.04.11.2024 vide orders passed in I.A.No. 01 of 2024.) ...Petitioners AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and, Commerce (M-l) Department, represented by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Director of Mines and Geology, B.R.K.R. Building, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. M/s. Gem Granites (Pvt) Limited, 76, Cathedral Road, Chennai, represented by its Regional Manager, R.Gunasekharan, S/o. G.Raju ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or orders, direction or directions to quash the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in Memo No.12173/M.ll(1)/2007-2 dated 17.2.2009. 1. 2. 3. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to bring the legal heir of the deceased 1st petitioner Sri B.V. Subba Rao as petitioner Nos. 2 in the writ petition. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2009rWVMP. NO: 1061 OF 2009) Between: M/s. Gem Granites (Pvt.) Limited @ 70, Cathedral Road, Chennai rep. by its Regional Manager, R. Gunashekaran, S/o. G. Raju, Aged about 54 years ...Petitioner/Respondent No.3 in WP AND 1. B V.Subba Rao(Died), S/o.Subba Rayudu R/o.40-814-10-5 Nehru Nagar, Kurnool. 2. B.V.Surya Kiran Kumar, S/o Late B.V.Subba Rao, Age 46 years Occ Business, R/o of 40-814-5, Nehru Nagar, Kurnool, Kurnool District. (Petitioner No.2 is brought on record as L.R of the deceased of the sole petitioner as per the Court order dt.04.11.2024 vide orders passed in I.A.No. 01 of 2024.) ...Respondent/Writ Petitioner 3. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and. Commerce (M-l) Department, represented by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4. The Director of Mines and Geology, B.R.K.R. Building, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Respondents 1 & 2 in WP Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 13-03-2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No.6527 of 2009 in W.P.N0.4979 of 2009 and dismiss the writ petition with costs in the interest of justice. % • I.A. NO: 2 OF 2009rWPMP. NO: 6527 OF 2009^ Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in Memo No.12173/M.ll(1)/2007-2 dated 17.2.2009 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI N NIRMAL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 and 2: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI/SMT N SHOBA The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010157452009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY .THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 4979/2009 Between: B.v.subba Rao(died) and Others ...PETmONER(S) AND Government Of Andhra Pradesh Industries And and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.N NIRMAL KUMAR 2.. Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.N SHOBA 2.GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “ to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings of the f’ respondent in Memo No. 12173/M.11(1)/2007-2, dated 17.02.2Q09 and pass such other orders....” order dated 13.03.2009, while issuing Rule Nisi, has for. However, the same shall be subject the file of the learned Additional Junior 2. This Court vide granted interim suspension as prayer to the result of O.S No.26 of 2007 on Civil Judge, Ongole. 3. Heard Mr. N. Nirmal Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. N. Shoba, learned counsel for the 3'"^ respondent. would contend that the land in Cheemakurthi Mandal, Prakasam District to an 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sy.No.118 of R.L.Puram extent of Ac. 26.16 cents is the subject of the matter of the suit in O.S.No.183 the famiiy members of the originai pattadars, which was ended by way of compromise and finai decree was passed on 25.09.1940 by of 1932 in between the District Musif Court, Ongole. One Ms. Adilaxmamma and others have of Attorney (in short GPA) dated 10.06.1992 in executed General Power favour of one executed a of the petitioner along with one inducted into possession and enjoyment of the same. Mr. A. Venkatramaiah in respect of the land in Sy.No.118, who lease deed dated 12.11.1998 in respect of Ac. 2.50 cents in favour Mr. A. Srinivasan, since then the 1®' petitioner has been 5. The petitioner has applied for quarry lease in order to do quarrying of land of Ac. 2.50 cents on 14.06.2005. black galaxy granite in the leased Subsequently the 3' on 02.11.2005 on respondent also submitted application for the same land the ground that he purchased the land of Ac. 2.50 cents in Sy. No.118 of R.L.Puram under four sale deeds in the year 1998 and they are 3 entitled for the quarry lease. The Tahsildar, Cheemakurthi issued proceedings dated 13.12.2006 made recommendation to issue No Objection Proceedings in favour of the 1®* petitioner and accordingly the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently the 2"^^ respondent passed order dated 12.01.2007 granting quarry lease for Ac. 2.25 cents in Sy.No.118(P) of R.L.Puram, Cheemakurthi Mandal, Prakasam District for a period of 20 years. The observation by the 2 respondent that quarry is subject to finality of the suit in O.S.No.183 of 1992 and O.S.No.96 of 2006, but said suits are not pending and the 1®‘ petitioner is not party therein. Pursuant to the order of the 2'^'^ respondent dated 12.01.2007, the petitioner started quarry operations by investigating huge amount. The 3^^ respondent filed an Appeal questioning the order dated 12.01.2007 of the 2"^ respondent. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.26 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ongole for grant of permanent injunction as the documents submitted by the 3^*^ respondent are fictitious. While the matter stood thus, the 1®' respondent passed order dated 04.05.2007 has been set aside the order dated 12.01.2007 and it has been nd ordered that after the title disputes are resolved, the quarrying licence can be issued. Assailing the same, W.P.No.11388 of 2007 has been filed and the same has been set aside on 17.01.2008 and the matter was remitted back to the 1®* respondent for fresh disposal. Aggrieved by the same 3^^^ respondent filed W.A.No.421 of 2008 and the Hon’ble Division Bench directed the 1®* respondent to hear the parties and take final decision. The 1®* respondent kept the matter pending nearly six months and passed order dated 17,02.2009 respondent on same grounds on which it 04.05.2007, whereby the quarry lease granted in respondent stood set aside once again. Assailing the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. against allowing the appeal of the 3 allowed earlier on was nd favour of the 2 respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material writ affidavit and mainly contended that Sy.No. 118 of of Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District is of an extent of 6. Per contra, 3 averments made in the R.L.Puram Village Ac. 26.16 cents and which is not the subject of the suit in O.S.No.183 of 1932 25.09.1940. In fact, one and the same was ended in compromise on Telikepalli Ramaswamy Sarma filed a suit for partition and during pendency of not there, as R.L,.Puram Village is a by the Government under the the said suit, the resurvey numbers were whole Inam Village, which was taken over and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948 and provisions of Estates Abolition was done in or about the year 1960. It is further contended that by resurvey virtue of compromise decree passed in O.S.No.183 of 1932 an extent of Ac. share of legal heirs of Telikapalli Rao. In fact, they are not parties to the suit in 5.84 cents in Sy.No.118 fell to the Satyanarayana and Srinivasa O.S.No.183 of 1932. contended that the 3"'^ respondent applied in his patta land 7. It is further for grant of quarry lease for granite in Sy.No.118(P) to an extent of Ac. 2.50 cents out of Ac. 3.48 cents. After due verification by revenue authorities has submitted a report statiog that the subject land is a patta land purchased 5 under Registered Sale Deeds. The subject land was in possession and enjoyment of the vendors of the 3'^'* respondent for past more than 20 years. After purchase, the 3'"'^ respondent applied for grant of No Objection Certificate and has been issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 29.12.2005 after due enquiry. Suppressing the said fact, the petitioner has obtained No Objection Certificate. The petitioner is not supported any documents and invited speculative litigation. The 3'^^ respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.26 of 2007 for grant of injunction, which is pending. Since the petitioner removed the Magazine boxes and damages the structures a criminal case has been registered vide Crime No. 14 of 2007 of Chimakurthy P.S and he was arrested on 10.02.2007. The 1®* respondent rightly passed order vide proceedings No. 240655/R3(2)/2005 directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. The petitioner never started any quarrying operations as he is not in possession of the schedule land. The petitioner is consistently dragging the suit in O.S.No.26 of 2007. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Perused the record. 9. It is the contention of the 3'^'^ respondent that the petitioner consistently dodging the suit in O.S.No.26 of 2007 filed by the 3'^'^ respondent since then and finally decreed vide judgment dated 10.11.2014. Further, the petitioner has no valid documents to prove the title with regard to subject land and also the subject land is not the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.183 of 1932. After due verification and survey conducted by the revenue authorities 6 favour of the 3'"^ respondent. The has issued No Objection Certificate in suppressed the real facts and obtained No Objection Certificate petitioner has with bogus documents. 10. The petitioners have fiied Commissioner's report in O.S.No.26 of 2007 and aiso copy of finai decree in O.S.No.183 of 1932, so also counter affidavit filed by the 2"“ respondent in Appeal No.1219/M.ll(1)/ 2007-1 before and Geology) and other proceedings issued in the Appellate Authority (Mines favour of the 1 petitioner by the official respondents in support of their contentions. Memo dated 19.10.2024 stating, that the respondent Memo dated 11. The 3'^^ respondent filed a petitioner questioning the proceedings of the 1 Appeal filed by the 3^'^ respondent has been allowed 17.02.2009 wherein the the quarry lease granted in favour of the petitioner was set aside as arbitrary .2009,this Court suspending the impugned order, but the and illegal. On 13.03 same of the Court of allowed on merits on 10.11.2014. In support of their contentions, the copies of shall be subject to the result of the suit in O.S.No.26 of 2007 on the file Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. But the said suit was documents have been filed. 12. The suit in O.S.No.26 of 2007 has been filed by the 2"^ respondent for grant of permanent injunction against the l “ petitioner in respect of subject land i.e., Sy.No.118 an extent of Ac. 2.50 cents situated in R.L.Puram Village, 7 Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. In the impugned proceedings dated 17.02.2009 it is clearly stated in Para 27 and 28, which reproduced hereunder: 27. Further it is observed that Sri B.V.Subba Rao may be holding a registered sale deed from the G.P. A Holder, who has obtained a G.P. A from the legal heirs of the Joint Pattadars, but he failed to produce the holding of pattas in favour of Joint Pattadars. Further, it is also not known what steps Sri B.V.Subba Rao has taken to protect his interest over this disputed land and why he is not getting impleaded in the suits pending in the Civil Courts over this disputed land. Further, the basis of the statement that O.S.No. 96 of 2006 Is a collusive one is not found. 28. Further Sri B.V.Subba Rao may not be a party to O.S.No.96 of 2006, but in the said suit the dispute is as regards to the land over an extent of Ac. 2.50 cents In Sy.No. 118/P and the judgment In the said suit is final and binding with reference to ownership”. 13. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in the light of aforementioned reasons, the petitioner is entitled to claim relief as prayed for. 14. It is the contention of the petitioner that the 1®* respondent failed to take any steps for protecting the interest of the petitioners over the disputed land. Further the learned single judge as well as the Division Bench were well aware of the grounds on which the 1®* respondent has rested its earlier order dated 4.5.2007 and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration by the 1®^ respondent keeping in view the possession of the rival parties over the disputed land. The 1®^ respondent did not examine the issue in that perspective but has reiterated the same grounds on which its earlierorder was 8 I passed. Thus the order of the 1®* respondent is contrary to the directions given this Court and is vitiated. 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court, in the interest of justice, is inclined to allow the writ petition while making the interim order as absolute. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings of the 1®‘ respondent in Memo No.12173/M.ll(1)/2007-2, dated 17.02.2009 are hereby quashed. However, the same shall be subject to result of the Civil Suits pending in between the petitioner and the respondents. No costs. 17. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- B.CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Secretary, Industries and. Commerce (M-l) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. The Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada. M/s. Gem Granites (Pvt) Limited, 76, Cathedral Road, Chennai, represented by its Regional Manager, R.Gunasekharan, S/o. G.Raju One CC to SRI. N NIRMAL KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] One CC to SRI/SMT. N SHOBA Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies VAK 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. HIGH COURT DATED:10/01/2025 ORDER tP^fAND,^ i 0 2 APR 2025 ov Col- ^ . Current isecuon ^ I. ,. WP.No.4979 of 2009 ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS