1 APHC010355802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 17876/2025 Between: 1. SANGAM MOHAN REDDY, S/O. VENKATESWAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O. RAMAYAPALEM VILLAGE, ADDANKI MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE (MINES-LL) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATLA. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATLA. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ADDANKI MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ADDANKI POLICE STATION, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 6. ADUSUMALLI SRINIVAS RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. TIMMAYAPALEM VILLAGE, ADDANKI MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to.may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 -5 in taking action against the 6th respondent who is illegally mining the earth from the petitioner land in an extent of Ac. 2.25 Cents in Sy. No. 7/1, Narasimhapuram village, Addanki mandal, Bapatla District, by considering the petitioners complaint dt. 09-07- 2025, is illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Minor Concessional Rules and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents 2-5 to stop the illegal mining of the clay being done by the 6th respondent from the petitioner’s land in an extent of Ac. 2.25 Cents in Sy. No. 7/1, Narasimhapuram village, Addanki mandal, Bapatia District, by considering the petitioner’s complaint dt. 09-07-2025, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri Koti Reddy Idamakanti, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3 2. The instant Writ Petition is filed challenging the inaction of the 2nd to 5th respondents in taking action against the 6th respondent, who is quarrying the ordinary earth from the petitioner’s land in an extent of Ac.2.25 Cents in Sy.No.7/1, Narasimhapuram Village, Addanki Mandal, Bapatla District, by considering the petitioner’s complaint dated 09.07.2025. 3. It is contended that the father of the petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.5.00 cents vide registered sale deed dated 12.08.1996. In family partition deed dated 23.06.2000, the subject property fell to the share of the petitioner. 4. It is contended that the 6th respondent purchased an extent of Ac.2.05 cents in the same survey number, vide registered sale deed dated 26.07.2021. When the 6th respondent attempted to excavate ordinary earth from the subject land, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.326 of 2024 against the 6th respondent, which is pending. It is stated that on 09.07.2025, the 6th respondent had again tried to interfere and excavate, and the petitioner gave a complaint to the 2nd to 5th respondents. Since no action is taken, this Writ Petition is filed. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed before the Court, the instructions that have been received in the case. A perusal of the same reflects that pursuant to the representation of the petitioner, the Mines Department has taken steps to conduct a joint inspection and the same was 4 conducted on 23.07.2025 in the presence of both the petitioner and the unofficial respondent. In the said survey, they have found that both the petitioner and the unofficial respondent have lands abutting each other. The report further says they were shown the pit spread over an extent of Ac.0.53 cents over which the alleged excavation was made, and the same was found to be around two meters depth, and estimated the alleged excavation from the said pit would have been around 4,290 Cu. Mtrs and on the day of the inspection, there was no quarrying going on. Upon confrontation, the unofficial respondent stated that the said land belongs to him and that he had dug the pit in August last year for his personal use, to fill his agricultural fields. It is further stated that the petitioner is also claiming the very same land as his own. The Revenue officials have noted that the petitioner and the unofficial respondent have the following lands: Sl.No. Name of the person Old Sy.No. LPM. No. as per Re-Survey Extent Acres Location 1 Sangam Mohan Reddy 7-1 28 2.25 Narasimhapuram Vg, Addanki Md. 2 Adusumalli Srinivasa Rao 7-1 29 8.31 Joint field (2.05 Acs) Narasimhapuram Vg, Addanki Md. And the petitioner has made an application to the Revenue Department to conduct a survey and demarcation of his lands and the said representation is pending with the Revenue Department. 6. The Mines Department thus has instructed both the petitioner and the unofficial respondent not to conduct any excavation further. The local 5 revenue officials were also ordered to have a vigil over the subject area and ensure that no illegal excavation is done. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not stop excavating the land after the joint inspection, and excavation is still on over the subject land. In the said context, the learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the landholder is also responsible for any illegal excavation. 8. Considered the rival submissions. 9. From the writ affidavit and the joint inspection report, it appears that a civil dispute is pending between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent. When the inspection was conducted, no excavation was going on. However, some excavation was found to have been done over an extent of Ac.0.53 cents and the same was stated to be of August, 2024. After conclusion of the survey the Mines Department has also instructed the local revenue staff to see that there is no illegal excavation activity is carried out. 10. As per the complaint of the petitioner, the respondents have acted on and conducted joint inspection and it was found that between the unofficial respondent and the petitioner there is a civil dispute pending before civil court, in respect of the subject land and both the petitioner and the unofficial respondent lay claim over the disputed site. It is further stated that in the case of the illegal excavation done, under APMMC Rules the land holder is also responsible. 6 11. In view of the foregoing, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However the respondents shall take appropriate action, if any, illegal mining is brought to their notice, or if they come across with any such illegal mining, in respect of the subject land, in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both the petitioner and unofficial respondents. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:04.08.2025 MVK 7 247 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 17876/2025 Date:04.08.2025 MVK