HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.44043 of 2022, 3557 of 2015 and 38122 of
2014
These three writ petitions are clubbed together and
disposed by way of a common order.
COMMON ORDER:
The petitioner filed these writ petitions for the following
reliefs:
W.P.No.44043 of 2022
"to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or
Order or Orders, Direction or Directions to declare the action of the 4th
respondent in locking the power room and other office rooms of the
petitioner seizing the vehicles of the petitioner and preventing the petitioner from carrying on the quarrying operations in the land in Sy. No.228 of Girgetpally Village, Vikarabad Mandal and District in pursuance to the Mining leases granted to it by the Department of Mines, Government of Telangana, basing on undated survey report and without following due process of law, as illegal, highhanded and unconstitutional and to direct the respondents to act in accordance with law..."
2W.P.No.3557 of 2015 "...Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Orders, Direction or Directions declaring the Final Notice issued by the 4th respondent in Rc.No. 15/V1/2015 dated 24.01.2015 whereby the petitioner was directed to remove the stone crusher from the RF Area as illegal, unconstitutional and unsustainable and to issue a consequential direction to the 4th respondent not to interfere with the quarrying operations of the petitioner over the leased land of 15.20 acres in Sy. No.228 of Girgetpally Village, Vikarabad Mandal, R.R. District, except by following due process of law by way of demarcation of the RF Area with the land leased to the petitioner for quarrying operations" W.P.No.38122 of 2014 "Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 6th respondent in issuing proceedings Dated 19.11.2014 (though styled as Show Cause Notice) and preventing the petitioner from operating the quarry and the further action of the respondent No.4 in interfering with the mining activities of the petitioner without any authority of law in Sy. No.228 over an extent of Acs.15.20 gts of 3 land situated at Girgetpally Village, Vikarabad Mandal, Rangareddy District as being illegal, arbitrary without any jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the Proceedings Dated 19.11.2014 and consequently direct the respondents 4 and 6 not to interfere with the mining activities of the petitioner in Sy.No.228 for an extent of Ac.15.20 gts of land at Girgitpally Village of Vikarabad Mandal..."
2. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Forests representing respondent Nos.1 to 4.
3. Brief facts of the case:
3.1 The petitioner submits that petitioner is a proprietory concern and it is engaged in running a stone crushing unit and they made an application for grant of Quarry Lease to an extent of Acs.7.20 guntas in Survey No.228 of Girgetpally Village, Vikarabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology in the year 2007 and concerned authority i.e., the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology granted 4 Quarry Lease on 22.02.2007. The lease deed was executed between the petitioner and Assistant Director of Mines on 04.04.2007 and the same is valid for 15 years, second quarry lease was also granted on 17.01.2009 to the petitioner to an extent of Acs.3.00 in Survey No.228 of Girgetpally Village on 22.01.2009 and executed lease deed for a period of 15 years up to 21.01.2024. Similarly, another quarry lease was also granted in the year 2009 to an extent of Acs.5.00 of land in Survey No.228. The lease deed was executed on 17.11.2009 for a period of 15 years. According to the petitioner he was granted quarry lease for a total extent of Acs.15.20 guntas in Survey No.228 of Girgetpally village. The lease granted in respect of Acs.8.00 guntas of land are still in force.
3.2 He further submits that on 19.11.2014, Sub-Collector, Vikarabad, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner stating that the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Vikarabad has informed him on 13.11.2014 that the Girgetpally Reserve Forest 5 was notified under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act and requested to cancel all the mining activities in the said area and the petitioner submitted explanation contending that the leases were granted in their favour after due inspection of the site by the Tahsildar and hence the same cannot be cancelled.
3.3 He also submits that the petitioner filed W.P.No.38112 of 2014 questioning the show cause notice dated 19.11.2014 and the consequential action of preventing the petitioner from doing quarry operations and this Court granted interim order on 17.12.2014 directing Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records to conduct survey for demarcation and fixation of boundaries in Survey No.228 and 148 of Girgetpally Village, after giving notice to the petitioner and other affected persons. Pursuant to the interim order dated 17.12.2014, Assistant Director of Survey and land records directed the Inspector of survey to conduct survey. He conducted survey in the presence of forest officials and revenue officials. He found that the 6 Respondent/Forest Department is in possession of excess land of Acs.28.00 guntas in Survey No.228 by being in possession of Acs.337.35 guntas against the land of Acs.309.00 guntas allotted to it. He also observed that stone crusher belonging to the petitioner is existing within the forest pillars. He also found that though the land lease in Sy.No.228 was Acs.15.20 guntas, the existing quarries and stone crushers covered only an extent of Acs.12.20 guntas.
3.4 The petitioner further submits that on 24.01.2015 Assistant Conservator of Forests issued final notice alleging that the stone crusher has been found inside the Reserve Forest area as per the survey conducted by the ADSLR and directed the petitioner to remove the same within two (2) weeks and also has addressed a letter to TSSPDCL to disconnect the power supply to the crushing unit of the petitioner. On 03.02.2015, the power supply was disconnected by the DISCOM Authorities. At that stage, the petitioner approached this Court and filed 7 W.P.No.3557 of 2015 questioning the notice dated 24.01.2015 and also to restrain him from interfering with the quarry operations of the petitioner in Survey No.228 of Girgetpally Village and wherein interim direction was granted directing forest officials not to interfere with quarry operations of the petitioner and also restored power supply.
3.5 The petitioner further submits that on 05.07.2022 Assistant Director of Mines and Geology issued a letter stating that a Joint survey is going to take place for demarcation of the leased land of the petitioner in Survey No.228 of Girgetpally Village and the petitioner was directed to attend the Joint Survey on 20.07.2022. Though the representative of the petitioner has attended on 20.07.2022 at the office of respondent No.4, only his signature was taken and no survey was conducted. On 14.11.2022 respondent No.4 issued notice stating that the petitioner encroached into the land about Acs.6.13 guntas of forest area and used the same for dumping quarry debris, thus 8 damaging the forest land and directed the petitioner to submit his objections as to why the action should not be taken for recovery of damages and also for registering a case. On 25.11.2022 the petitioner submitted the reply stating that the Respondent/Forest Department itself is in excess possession of land in Survey No.228 and there is no demarcation of the Reserve Forest land of Acs.309.00 guntas at the time of notifying the Reserve Forest and in the absence of the same, the respondent cannot say that the petitioner has encroached into the forest land.
3.6 The petitioner further submits that on 28.11.2022 respondent No.4 issued reply stating that the petitioner has to vacate the forest land immediately, otherwise action will be taken against him. He further submits that on 02.12.2002 respondent No.4 officials seized the power room and other office rooms of the petitioner and also taken away the vehicles of the petitioner and kept them in respondent No.4 office. Hence this writ petition. 9
4. Respondent No.4 filed counter on his behalf and on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 contending that Girgetpally Forest Block was notified under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 and published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette No.20-D dated 22.05.1975 and the Survey No.228 is very much part of the Girgetpally Forest block as per the notification. He further submits that District Officer, Survey and Land records Vikarabad District, vide letter No.K3/869/2022 dt.28.10.2022 has submitted to the District Collector, Vikarabad that "the entire Mining area on ground in Survey No.228 the mining area to an extent of Acs.1.00 guntas, Crusher Machine to an extent of Acs.2.06 guntas and metal dumping to an extent of Acs.4.07guntas(total to an extent of Acs.7.13guntas) is falling in the Forest boundary".
4.1 He further submits that District Officers, Survey and Land Records, Vikarabad, issued notice vide letter No.1754/2022/A2 dated 14.11.2022 and dated 28.11.2022 to 10 the petitioner, stating that under the guise of approved leases, the petitioner is doing quarry operations in about Acs.1.00 guntas of Girgetpally Forest Block and also quarry debris are being dumped in about Acs.4.00 guntas of forest land which is in violation of directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in their orders dated 12.12.1996 in Godavarman Case as well as violation of Section 2 of Forest(Conservation) Act, 1980 apart from violation of provisions of Section 4 read with Section 7 of Telangana Forest Act, 1967.
4.2 He further contended that the petitioner filed W.P.No.38122 of 2014 questioning the show cause notice issued by Sub-Collector, Vikarabad, dated 19.11.2014 and also W.P.No.3557 of 2015 questioning the notice dated 24.01.2015 issued by Assistant Conservator of Forest, Vikarabad which are pending. Petitioner under the guise of lease, encroached into about Acs.6.13 guntas of forest area and used the same for dumping quarry debris, thus encroaching/diverting the forest 11 land and also damaging the same.
4.3 He also submits that as per the survey reports dated 19.01.2015 of Inspector Survey, O/o the Assistant Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, the Mandal Surveyor, Vikarabad dated 25.10.2022 and District Officer, Survey and Land Records, Vikarabad District dated 28.10.2022, it is clear that the petitioner is carrying the mining in Acs.7.13 guntas of land within and inside the forest boundary covered with forest boundary pillars and the petitioner contravened the provisions of Telangana Forest Act 1967 and Section 2 and 3 of Forest Conservation Act 1980. He further submits that on 02.12.2022 two cases were booked against the petitioner under Telangana Forest Act, 1967 and Forest conservation Act, 1980 for illegally occupying forest land in compartment No.68 of Girgetpally Reserve Forests by way of Acs.2.06 guntas of establishing crusher and an extent of Acs.04.07 guntas for dumping extracted metal and for illegal trespassing in compartment No.68 of Girgetpally Reserve Forest.
12
5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Srinivas contended that the Mines and Geology Authorities have granted quarry leases in favour of petitioner for total extent of Acs.15.20 guntas in Survey No.228 of Girgetpally village after considering the report submitted by the revenue authorities, executed the lease in favour of the petitioners and pursuant to the same only the petitioner is carrying out quarry operations in the said area and the petitioner has not encroached or occupied any portion of the land belonging to the Respondent/Forest Department. He further submits that the survey report of Inspector Survey O/o Assistant Survey and Lands records, clearly reveals that Respondent/Forest Department is in excess possession of land to an extent of Acs.28.00 guntas in Survey No.228 by being in possession of Acs.337.35 guntas against the land of Acs.309.00 guntas allotted to it. The Mandal Surveyor, Vikarabad conducted Survey and submitted a Survey report stating that land allotted to the Respondent/Forest Department in Survey No.228 is Acs.309.00 guntas out of the total extent of Acs.692.35 guntas. 13 Where as the forest area derived as per pillars erected on the ground is Acs.406.00 guntas and showing that the Respondent/Forest Department is in excess occupation of Acs.97.00 guntas in Survey No.228.
5.1 He further contended that this Court in W.P. No.38122 of 2014 granted interim order on 17.12.2014 directing the Assistant Director of Survey and Land records to conduct survey and demarcate the land after giving notice to the petitioner and other affected persons. The Inspector of Survey, Ranga Reddy District conducted Survey and submitted report on 19.01.2015 pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. He further submits that Mandal Surveyor, Vikarabad also conducted survey and submitted survey report dated:nil to the Tahsildar, Tandur Mandal, Vikarabad District stating that in Survey No.148 to an extent of Acs.7.16 guntas area is falling in the forest boundaries and in Survey No.228 mining pit area to an extent of Ac.1.00 and mining crusher and metal dumping area to an extent of Acs.6.13 14 guntas and total an extent of Acs.7.13 guntas is falling in forest boundary and the mining area to the extent of Acs.11.23 guntas is falling in Government Land. According to the said report the mining pit area falling in forest boundaries is only Ac.1.00 and the remaining area belongs to revenue department. He submits that the Inspector of Survey, Ranga Reddy District submitted report dated 19.01.2015 contrary to the Survey report furnished by the Mandal Surveyor, Vikarabad and both the reports are inconsistent.
5.2 He further submits that respondent No.4 passed the impugned order vide reference No.1754/2022/A2 dated 28.11.2022 alleging that the petitioner has admitted that he is in possession of forest area and there he committed the forest offence and thus is liable for action as per law and directed the petitioner to vacate the forest land. Though the petitioner has not admitted in any proceedings that he is in possession of forest land. Since the petitioner's specific contention is that the 15 Respondent/Forest Department is in excess occupation of Acs.97.00 guntas in Survey No.228 and the petitioner has not occupied any extent of land belonging to the Respondent/Forest Department, the respondent authorities without fixing the boundary of forest land, are not entitled to initiate any proceedings including passing of the impugned order against the petitioner.
5.3 Learned Government Pleader vehemently contended that the writ petition filed by the petitioner questioning the impugned notice dated 28.11.2022 issued by respondent No.4 is not maintainable under law on the ground that the petitioner has established stone crusher and dumping extracted metal in the forest area belonging to the Respondent/Forest Department and the respondents rightly issued the impugned proceedings.
6. He further contended that the subject land pertains to the forest land and it was notified under Girgetpally Reserve Forest Block, Vikarabad Taluk under Section 4 of Forest Act 16 1967 and published Andhra Pradesh Gazette No.20-D dated 22.05.1975 and the mining authorities have no right to grant any lease in favour of the petitioners. In support of his contentions the learned Government Pleader relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court reported in T.N.Godavarman Trhiumulkpad Vs. Union of India and others1
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and the material available on record, it is undisputed fact that the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology granted quarry leases on 22.02.2007, 17.01.2009 and 22.01.2009 respectively in favour of the petitioner and Assistant Director of mines and Geology executed lease deeds in respect of total extent of land Acs.15.20 in Survey No.228 of Girgetpally Village in three different lease deeds.
8. The petitioner filed two writ petitions viz., W.P.No.38112 of 2014 questioning the show cause notice dated 19.11.2014 1 1997(2)SCC 267 17 issued by Sub-Collector, Vikarabad and W.P.No.3557 of 2015 questioning the notice dated 24.01.2015 issued by Assistant Conservator of Forests, Vikarabad. In W.P.No.38112 of 2014, this Court directed the Assistant Director of Survey and Land records to conduct survey for demarcation and fixation of boundaries in Survey No.228 and 148 of Girgetpally village, Vikarabad Mandal after giving notices to the petitioner and all other affected persons by its order dated 17.12.2014 which reads as follows:
Learned Government Pleader for Revenue has received instructions from the Sub-Collector, Vikarabad Division - the 6th respondent, which prima facie show that the survey was conducted by the Tahsildar, Vikarabad Mandal, on 15.11.2014, including the location sketch on the petitioners lease in Government land. However, the Assistant Diarector of Survey and Land Records, Rangareddy District , was requested to conduct survey by the Sub-Collector, vikarrabad, for demarcation and fixing the boundaries in Survey Nos.228 and 148 of Girgetpally village, Vikarabad Mandal.
Since, the survey is proposed to be conducted, the Sub-Collector, however, shall ensure that the Assistant director of Survey and Land Records conducts the survey, as ordered, aafter giving notice to the petitioners and all other affected persons and complete the demarcation and survey work on or before 15.01.2015.
9. The specific contention of the learned senior counsel for 18 the petitioner is that Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records has not conducted survey and demarcated the land and fixed boundaries between Survey No.228 and 148 of Girgetpally village, Vikarabad Mandal. Unless and until the survey authorities fix the boundaries to the forest land in respect of Acs.309.00 guntas the Respondent/Forest Department is not entitled to contend that the petitioner is in possession of forest land. According to the Mandal Surveyor Report, the Government allotted Acs.309.00 guntas to the Reserved Respondent/Forest Department and the remaining extent of land belongs to the Revenue Department. According to the survey report, the Respondent/Forest Department is in possession of excess land in Survey No.228. The petitioner's contention is that he is doing mining operation in the land which was allotted by the Mines and Geology authorities and he is not doing any mining operations in the forest land.
10. Admittedly, the two reports submitted by Inspector of 19 Survey, Ranga Reddy District dated 19.01.2015 and Mandal Surveyor, Vikarabad report dated nil are inconsistent.
11. The contention of learned Government Pleader for Forest is that according to the petitioner, the Mines and Geology authorities have granted lease hold rights for quarry operations in favour of the petitioner for certain extent of lands covered by lease agreements as mentioned supra, and the petitioner is not entitled to enter into more than the said extent of lands, but the petitioner is doing mining operations and installed stone crushing unit and also dumping extracted metal in the forest land.
12. The dispute between the petitioner and Respondent/Forest Department is purely disputed question of fact, which has to be determined and resolved by competent authorities i.e., revenue department by conducting survey. Unless and until the survey is conducted and boundaries are fixed by issuing notice to the petitioner and other affected parties 20 including Respondent/Forest Department, the real truth will not come out. Whether the petitioner is carrying out quarry operations and other works in the area allotted to him or not and whether the excess land occupied by the petitioner belongs to Respondent/Forest Department cannot be determined, unless and until the concerned authorities conduct survey and fix the boundaries.
13. In view of the foregoing reasons, without going into the other aspects of the case, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District to conduct survey and fix the boundaries after issuing notice to the petitioner and all other affected parties including Respondent/Forest Department within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. If the said survey report reveals that the petitioner occupied any portion of land belonging to Respondent/Forest Department and doing quarry operation or other activities viz., installation of 21 stone crushing unit and dumping extracted metal in the forest land, Respondent/Forest Department is entitled to take steps in accordance with law. Till the entire exercise is completed the respondent/Forest Department is directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner.
14. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO 17th March, 2023 PSW 22 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.44043 of 2022, 3557 of 2015 and 38122 of 2014 17th March, 2023 23 PSW