APHC010623052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 32270/2025 Between: 1. SATTI VENKATA SATYANARAYANA REDDY, S/O. SATTI KONDA REDDY, AGED 67 YEARS, OCC. QUARRY OWNER, R/O. D.NO.1-256, VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE, UBALANKA, RAVULAPALEM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT-533237. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, B.N. KANDRIGA MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 5. THE ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION APIIC LTD, O/O. ZONAL OFFICE, APIIC LTD., PADMAVATHI NILAYAM, 7TH FLOOR, ROOMNO.701 TO 710, TIRUCHANUR-517503 REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 6. THE ZONAL MANAGER, THE ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION (APIIC) LTD., O/O. ZONAL OFFICE, APIIC LTD., PADMAVATHI NILAYAM, 7TH FLOOR, ROOMNO.701 TO 710, TIRUCHANUR-517503. 7. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE (M.LL) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent / Tahsildar, B.N. Kandriga Mandal in issuing letter Nos.ROC/2024 dated 31.07.2024 and ROC/05/2024 dated 05.01.2024, in so far as they relate to the allocation of land covered by my existing QLs in Sy.Nos.84 and 382 (Kothapalem) and Sy.Nos.513, 516 and 517 (Alathuru) as illegal, arbitrary and set-aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners existing rights and ongoing renewal process for the Quarry Leases and pass 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 Pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the letter Nos.ROC/2024 dated 31.07.2024 and ROC/05/2024 dated 05.01.2024 issued by the respondent in respect of the petitioners land insofar as they relate to the allocation of land covered by my existing QLs in Sy.Nos.84 and 382 (Kothapalem) and Sy.Nos.513, 516 and 517 (Alathuru) pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRIPATHI RAVI TEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. SANTHI CHANDRA SC For APIIC 3. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the action of the 3rd respondent/Tahsildar, B.N.Kandriga Mandal in issuing letter Nos.ROC/2024 dated 31.7.2024 and ROC/05/2024 dated 05.01.2024, in so far as they relate to the allocation of land covered by my existing QLs in Sy.Nos.84 and 382 (Kothapalem) and Sy.Nos.513, 516 and 517 (Alathuru) as illegal, arbitrary and set-aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners existing rights and ongoing renewal process for the Quarry Leases and pass….” 2. Heard M/s. Sripath Raviteja, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, respondent no.3 Tahsildar issued letter on 31.7.2024 and 05.01.2024 which relates to allocation of land covered by existing quarry lease in Sy.No.84 and 382 of Kothapalem and Sy.Nos.513, 516 and 517 of Alathuru as illegal and arbitrary. The contention of the petitioner is that the subject lands were allotted to the petitioner by way of a lease and the application for renewal of lease is also pending and the enquiry is also going on with regard to renewal applications and the petitioner has paid substantial amount. While that being the position, now the respondents have allotted the land to APIIC 4 through impugned proceedings and the respondents are laying road in the subject land. Hence the Writ Petition. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, on instructions, has submitted that the lease period was already expired and the authorities are considering the application for renewal of lease and there are no mining activities in the subject land. Hence the properties are handed over to APIIC. 5. Admittedly, the authorities have accepted that the application for renewal is pending before them. Hence in the said circumstances, it is not appropriate to proceed with any activity without finalizing the application pending before the authorities. 6. In view of the same, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents more particularly respondent nos.2 and 4 to consider the applications which are pending for renewal for license and pass appropriate orders. Till such time, the respondents are directed to maintain status-quo. No costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the writ petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH 30.12.2025 RD 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.32270 of 2025 30.12.2025 RD