IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 8249 OF 2014 Between: Chevuturu Venkateswarlu, S/o Rathaiah, aged about 60 yrs. R/o 2nd line Shivaji Nagar, M. M. Road, Ongole - 523 002(A. P.) Prakasam District. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce (Mines-ll) Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad-500 063(A.P.). 2. The Director of Mines and Geology, Govt, of A.P., B. R. K. R. Bhavan, Hyderabad-500 063(A.P.). 3. The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4. Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Secretary, Revenue (Land Reforms) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-500 063(A.P.). 5. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation, rep. by the Director, Mr. B. R. V. Susheel Kumar, H. M. W. S. S. B. Premises, Rear Block, 3'^^ Floor, Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500 004(A.P.). ...RESPONDENTS 7 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 issue an order or direction or writ more appropriately, a WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the impugned action of the Respondents herein, particularly 1®* to 4*^ Respondents herein in not considering and disposing of the Petitioner's quarry lease application dated. 28-02-2008 over an extent of 3-000 Hectares in Sy. No. 55/5 of R. L. Puram Vilalge, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District inspite of directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in W. P. No. 27687 of 2009, dated. 10-02-2010 as illegal and further direct the Respondents herein to consider and dispose of the Petitioner's quarry lease application dated. 28-02-2008 for grant of quarry lease over an extent of 3- 000 Hectares in Sy. No. 55/5 of R. L. Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District forthwith by further directing the 4*^ Respondent to grant revenue lease to me U/s 14(6)(i) of the A. P. Land reforms(Ceiling on Agricultural holdings)Act, 1973 forthwith with co-terminus with quarry lease or in the alternative, direct the Respondents herein to consider Petitioner's quarry lease application dated. 28-02-2008 for grant of Sub-Lease over an extent of 3-000 Hectares in Sy. No. 55/5 of R. L. Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District to the Petitioner by the 5th Respondent as was granted by the 5'^ Respondent to other private Entrepreneurs in their other reserved area in Sy. No. 55/5 of R. L. Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District vis-a-vis revenue lease forthwith. w I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014fWPMP. NO: 10278 OF 2014) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents herein to consider and dispose of Petitioner's quarry lease application dated. 28-02-2008 for grant of quarry lease over an extent of Ac.3-000 Hectares in Sy. No. 55/5 of R. L. Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI V. R.N. PRASHANTH The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010710022014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 8249/2014 Between: Chevuturu Venkateswarlu, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KRAJANNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.V R N PRASHANTH 3.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY 4.VSUBRAHMANYAM The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief; “ to issue an order or direction or writ more appropriately a WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the impugned action of the Respondents herein particularly 1^ to 4"' Respondents herein in not considering and disposing of the Petitioners quarry lease application dated 28-02-2008 St 2 tr over an extent of 3-000 Hectares in Sy.No.55/5 of R.L.Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District, inspite of directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.27687 of 2009, dated 10-02-2010 as illegal and further direct the Respondents herein to consider and dispose of the Petitioners quarry lease application dated 28-02-2008 for grant of quarry lease over an extent of 3-000 Hectares in Sy.No.55/5 of R.L.Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District, forthwith by further directing the 4*^ Respondent to grant revenue lease to the petitioner U/s 14(6)(i) of the A.P.Land reforms(Ceiling on Agricultural holdings)Act, 1973, forthwith with co-terminus with quarry lease or in the alternative, direct the Respondents herein to consider Petitioners quarry lease application dated 28-02- 2008 for grant of Sub-Lease over an extent of 3-000 Hectares in Sy. No. 55/5 of R.L.Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District to the Petitioner by the 5*^ Respondent as was granted by the 5"’ Respondent to other private Entrepreneurs in their other reserved area in Sy. No. 55/5 of R.L.Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District, vis-a-vis revenue lease forthwith....” \ Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner made an application for grant of quarry lease over an extent of 3-000 Hectares in Survey No.58P of Budawada Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam district on 14.12.1995. However, the same was considered for P.L in view of non-broken area by the 2"^^ respondent vide proceedings No.37734/R3(2)/95, dated 10.04.2003. While so, the said land was required for public purpose i.e., for the purpose of providing Water Supply Scheme to Ongole Town, the Prospecting License(P.L.) of the petitioner was prematurely terminated by the 1 respondent vide proceedings Memo No.12682/M.11(1 )/2005-9, dated 14.11.2005 and orally promised that he would be provided alternative lands for grant of quarry leases. In view of the promise, the petitioner made an application for grant of quarry lease over an extent of 3-000 Hectares in Survey No.55/5 of R.L.Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam district 2. St H 3 m on 28.02.2008 before the 2"^ respondent through the 3'"^ respondent and the 3rd respondent acknowledged the same on 28.02.2008 asking the petitioner to attend for inspection and survey on 25.03.2008. Accordingly, the petitioner attended for inspection and survey. But subsequently no action has been taken by the respondents, whereas, in similar circumstances, one K.Venkata Ramana was considered for grant of quarry lease in alternative land i.e., in Survey No.65/1A of R.L.Puram, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam district. Hence, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 04.11.2009 requesting the 2 respondent for grant of quarry lease. As there was no response, the petitioner nd filed W.P.No.27687 of 2009 before this Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 10.02.2010, with a direction to respondents to consider the quarry lease application of the petitioner dated 28.02.2008 and to pass necessary orders in accordance with law within a period of eight (08) weeks. Surprisingly, the 2^^^^ respondent issued Show-Cause Notice to the petitioner vide NO.18606/R3-1/2010, dated 15.05.2010 asking the petitioner to show cause within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice as to why the application in question should not be rejected under Rule 12(5)(d) of APMMC Rules, 1966. Thereafter, the petitioner filed objections dated 05.06.2010. As there was no response, the petitioner made another representation to the Minister dated 19.11.2012 requesting for grant of quarry lease. But still they did not considered the application. Finally, the petitioner made representation to the 2'^'^ respondent on 29.01.2014 requesting to consider quarry lease 4 th application dated 28.02.2008 at least on sub-lease basis with the 5 respondent as was granted by the 5*^ respondent with other private parties in the lands which were reserved for 5'^ respondent. But till date, there was no response from respondents 1 to 3. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. j The 3'"^ respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ oetition and stated that the area in an extent of 3-000 3. Hectares in Survey No.55/5 of R.L.Puram Village aganist the applied area of 3-000 Hectares, which is completely overlapping with the earlier 14 applications and the subject area is under title dispute in O.S.No. 138/92. The petitioner requested the 2"^^ respondent on 04.11.2009 to consider his quarry lease application dated 28.02.2008 as an alternative to the P.L. held by him is cancelled through Memo No.12682/M.11(1 )/2005-9, dated 14.11.2005. In rd compliance of the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.27687 of 2009, the 3 respondent vide letter No.1773/Q/2008, dated 01.05.2010 submitted further report to Zonal Joint Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole stating that “the Director of Mines & Geology Hyderabad vide Procs.No.31379/R3(2)/94, dated 01.02.2005 has granted for Black Galaxy Granite over an extent of Ac.46.50 cents of NOG given fora extent of Ac. 61.50 cents in Sy. No. 55/5 of R.L.Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal of Prakasam district for a period of 20 years subject to outcome of SLPA/VP’s and O.S’s on the subject matter. Further submit that the remaining area of Acs.15.00 (61.50-46.50=15.00) in the said ♦ t 5 survey number shall be considered in favour of 5^'' respondent after final disposal of A.S.No.112/2000 against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.138/1992.” Finally, the 3'"'^ respondent requested the 2^^ respondent to kindly reject the quarry lease application since the applied area is completely overlapping with the court cases i.e., O.S.No. 138/92. It is further stated that one M/s.Venkateswara Granites (who is prior applicant to present petitioner appilcation) has filed W.P.No.21364 of 2008 before this Court requesting to set aside the proceedings vide Rc.No.E1-2323-2004 issued by the 4 th respondent and for a direction to issue No Objection Certificate for grant of quarry lease over an extent of Ac. 15.00 cents in Survey No.55/5 of R.L.Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam district and requested to grant quarry lease in the subject area. Subsequently, this Court passed the common Judgment vide judgment dated 08.04.2010 in W.A.No.652 of 2009 W.P.Nos.11907 of 2007, 21364/2008 and S.A.Nos.974 and 1182 of 2006 by setting aside the impugned orders dated 01.01.2008 and directed the authorities to consider the petitioner’s request for grant of no objection and issue lease for granite in subject area. Subsequently, the Collector and District Magistrate has filed SLP.Nos.3521-3523 against the Judgment dated 08.04.2010 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same were pending. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6 Heard Mr.K.Rajanna, learned counsel for the petitioner and 4. Ms.P.Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, for the respondents. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the 5. contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the entire land in Survey No.55/5 of R.L.Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam district was entered in POB (Prohibitory order Book) under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and without permission and revenue lease from the Revenue Department under Section 14 (6)(i) of the said Act, no lease shall be granted to anybody including to the 5*^ respondent. Hence, as a precautionary measure, the petitioner made application to the 4’^ respondent on 28.05.2012 for grant of revenue lease and the same is pending till date. He further submits that when the 5'^ respondent has already granted sub-lease of some land out of the reserved area to them in Survey No.55/5 of R.L.Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam district, the same procedure of sub-lease ought to have been granted in favour of the petitioner also in the facts and circumstances and not considering the same to the petitioner is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 0^^': ; .V,- ; 6. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, the Government has not promised to provide alternative lands for grant of quarry lease. Further, no such lease was granted to K.Venkata Ramana N0.65/1A of R.L.Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam district, further submits that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.120, Revenue (L.R & F.1) Department, dated 22.01.2005 has issued No objection certificate grant quarry lease for Black Galaxy Granite over an extent of 61.50 acres in Survey No.55/5 of R.L.Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam district in favour of M/s.A.P.M.D.C Limited. Accordingly, the 2""^ respondent vide Proc.No.31379/R3-2/1994, dated 01.02.2005 has granted quarry lease over n extent of Ac.46.50 cents out of NOC given for an extent of Ac.61.50 cents in favour of M/s.A.P.M.D.C. Limited for a period of 20 years and the remaining area of Ac. 15.00 shall be considered in favour of M/s.A.P.M.D.C. Limited after in Survey She to final disposal of A.S.No.112 of 2000 against the decree and judgment i O.S.No.138 of 1992. She further submits that the petitioner contention that premature termination of his P.L. is not correct as the Government has not considered further extension of Prospecting License on ground of public interest and issued orders only after expiry of Prospecting License period of years vide Government Memo No. 12682/M.11(1 )/2005-9 14.11.2005. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader dismiss the writ petition. in two dated prays to 8 7. Perused the record. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that 8. admittedly the petitioner was applied for grant of quarry lease over an extent of 3-000 Hectares in Survey No.58P of Budawada Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam district and the same was considered for grant of P.L. for a period of two years, in view of non-broken area by 2"'* respondent vide proceedings No.37734/R3(2)/95, dated 10.04.2003. Thereafter, the Government not considered for further extension of P.L. and terminated the P.L. vide Government Memo No2682/M.II(1)/2005-9, dated 14.11.2005. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for alternative land in Survey No.55/5 of R.L.Puram, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam district. But the same was not considered as the subject land is under title dispute. Further, the SLP’s filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were also dismissed vide order dated 11.01.2023. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on 9. considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that, as the Special Leave Petitions (SLP’s) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were dismissed, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present writ petition with the following directions: i. The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh application for extension of quarry lease in an extent of 3-000 Hectares in Survey No.58P of Budawada Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam district, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such receipt of representation, the respondents are directed II. to re-examine the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No 10. costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall 11. stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ . //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce (Mines-ll) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Director of Mines and Geology, Govt, of A.P., B. R. K. R. Bhavan, Vijayawada. 3. The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4. The Secretary, Revenue (Land Reforms) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 5. The Director, Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation, Mr. B. R. V. Susheel Kumar, Vijayawada. 6. One CC to Sri K. Rajanna, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Two CCs to GP for Mines and Geology, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. One CC to Sri V. R.N. Prashanth, Advocate [OPUC] lO.Three C.D. Copies. Cnr I HIGH COURT Dil^,p:24/01/2025 I ; * 9 •( W tP ORDER 5 01 FEB 2025 || . Current Section o WP.No.8249 of 2014 DISPOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS