HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.589 of 2020
Date: 16.02.2021
BETWEEN
M/s. Saleem Metal Industries.
... APPELLANT
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat Building,
Hyderabad, Telangana
and others.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Mohammed Abdul Qader Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Revenue GP for Industries and Commerce GP for Mines and Geology Mr. Pathipaka Ram Prasad (SC - TSMDC) The Court made the following:
2JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy) Aggrieved by the order, dated 08.12.2020, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP.No.15402 of 2020, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, the appellant has approached this Court.
2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Single Judge.
3. In brief, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
(a) The petitioner was granted quarry lease for Metal and Stone in the land admeasuring Ac.5.00 guntas in Sy.No.239 (schedule property) situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for the period from 30.12.1996 to 29.12.2016. The quarry lease was cancelled vide proceedings dated 11.09.2007, pursuant to the orders passed in a public interest litigation, which culminated in SLP(Civil).No.2958-2959 of 1998. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.153 dated 01.03.2002 to consider allotment of alternate quarry lease sites to nine displaced persons and for that purpose, appointed a six member Mining Zone Committee notifying Ac.797.16 guntas at Yacharam Village to sub lease it to the displaced persons. On several representations of the displaced persons, the Government issued Memo No.13235/M.II (1)/2008-1 dated 01.10.2008 directing the Mines and Geology Department to take necessary action to sub lease an extent of Hundred Hectares to the nine displaced firms/persons and the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.3 to be allotted 10 Hectares.
(b) It is the further case of the petitioner that a person, who is similarly placed as him, had filed WP.No.31239 of 2012 wherein orders were passed on 05.12.2013 in his favour directing the respondent 3 No.5 therein to complete all the formalities and handover possession of the land admeasuring Ac.7.20 guntas in Sy.No.155/1 situated at Chinnaraviryala Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner submits that the petitioner in the above writ petition was rehabilitated and in spite of repeated reminders from 2008 onwards, he is not being granted quarry lease at the alternate site. In the said circumstances, the petitioner has sought similar relief as the one granted in WP.No.31229 of 2012 decided on 05.12.2013.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.3, the following averments were made:
(a) Four quarry leases were granted to several persons/entities including the petitioner in the schedule property and subsequently, the Department of Mines and Geology had cancelled the quarry leases. The Government has allocated land over an extent of Ac.500.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.239 and 240 of Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to HUDA for setting up of SEZ for IT & ITES Industries. This Court in a public interest litigation had set aside the leases granted in favour of 17 stone industries including the lease of the petitioner. Questioning the said order, the petitioner and others had approached the Supreme Court in SLP.Nos.1907-1908 of 2008 and the order of this Court was modified vide judgment dated 12.12.2003 directing that a distance of 1 KM is a safe distance between the site of the quarry leases and the residential localities or GLSR or Osmansagar Lake.
(b) The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.153 dated 01.03.2002 constituting a Committee for identifying areas suitable for quarrying/stone crushing on the outskirts of the city to be declared as mining zone to prevent problems to the inhabitants and to control pollution. The APMDS (erstwhile) was permitted to lease out quarry in 4 Sy.Nos.105, 121, 126, 132 and 200 of Yacharam Village over an extent of Ac.657.16 guntas for a period of 15 years under proceedings dated 16.09.2008 and to take necessary action to sub-lease an area of 100 hectares to 10 firms/persons out of the extent of Ac.657.16 guntas. The petitioner was also identified as the eligible person for sub-lease of 10 hectares and it was granted in the name of his firm, M/s. Saleem Metal Industries.
(c) The Government vide Memo dated 01.10.2008 issued certain directions to the Director of Mines and Geology to take necessary action to sub-lease the area situated at Yacharam Mining Zone. In compliance of the said memo, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology accorded permission to sub-lease 100 hectares of land out of an extent of Ac.657.16 guntas to ten persons including the petitioner and proceedings dated 19.11.2008 was issued to the petitioner subject to certain conditions to be complied before execution of the sub-lease.
(d) The erstwhile APMDC issued a notice dated 26.05.2009 to the petitioner requesting him to pay the amounts as communicated by way of Demand Draft by 15.06.2009 failing which, he was informed that necessary action would be taken which included cancellation of sub-lease. In response to the said notice, the petitioner and six others had submitted an explanation on 15.06.2009, requesting for six months time to pay the amounts. APMDC addressed letters to the petitioner on 22.07.2009 and 27.08.2009 calling him to pay the amounts on or before 09.09.2009 but the petitioner did not comply with the conditions mentioned in the grant of sub-lease till date.
(f) It was asserted that the petitioner having failed to respond to the notices issued by the erstwhile APMDC, cannot now seek the intervention of this Court after a period of over a decade. The petitioner can also not rely upon the order passed by this Court in 5 WP.No.31239 of 2012 dated 05.12.2013 since the petitioner in that case was diligent and willing to enter into a sub-lease with the erstwhile APMDC. Since the land which was proposed to be leased out to the petitioner therein was under a cloud of uncertainty on account of encroachments, this Court on a concession made by the respondents therein, had passed an order duly recording the same and directing the respondents therein to handover the possession of the land. The order passed by this Court was in the background of the facts relatable to the case and since the petitioner therein had complied with all the formalities including payment of the amounts for the purpose of granting the lease. The petitioner herein cannot take umbrage to the order dated 05.12.2013 and nor can he take shelter of the said order to seek a similar relief when admittedly he has not complied with the required formalities. Thus, the petitioner cannot be treated as similarly placed with the petitioner in WP.No.31239 of 2012.
5. The learned Single Judge on appreciation of the facts of the case and taking into consideration the submissions of the petitioner and the counter filed by the respondent No.3, has dismissed the writ petition by holding that the petitioner is differently placed as compared to the petitioner in WP.No.31239 of 2012. Further, the petitioner has not paid the amounts called for and failed to comply with the conditions imposed by the authorities. It was also observed that the petitioner had approached the Court after a lapse of seven years and several changes might have come up in the meantime.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 6
7. It is not denied that the petitioner was one of the persons/firms identified under the rehabilitation scheme for allotment of alternate site in view of being displaced from the original quarry sites pursuant to the orders passed by this Court and the Supreme Court. In fact, the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder disputing the averments in the counter filed by the respondent No.3. In spite of being allotted an alternate site by the erstwhile APMDC vide proceedings dated 19.11.2008, subject to certain conditions, the petitioner failed to comply with the said conditions. He was called upon to pay the amounts not only under the notice dated 15.06.2009, but also vide letters dated 22.07.2009 and 27.08.2009, but the petitioner did not comply with the conditions for grant of sub-lease. Since the conditions of allotment have not been complied with and the amounts required to be paid were not paid in spite of APMDC granting him sufficient time, the petitioner cannot be permitted to complain of any inaction or wrongful action on the part of the authorities.
8. In fact, the relevant material facts have been suppressed by the petitioner. There is no mention in the writ affidavit that the petitioner was called upon to pay the amount vide notice dated 15.06.2009 and subsequently, he was given time to do so until 09.09.2009. Even the circumstances under which orders were passed in WP.No.31239 of 2012 were suppressed by the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has approached this Court after an inordinate delay of seven years. There are laches on the part of the petitioner which remain unexplained. In any event, since the petitioner did not comply with the conditions of the lease, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined him any relief.
7
9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference.
10. The writ appeal is liable to be dismissed as meritless. Accordingly, it is, hereby dismissed while affirming the order of the learned Single Judge.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ __________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J February 16, 2021 DSK