Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S. Utkarsha Estates vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 July, 2022
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.18390 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
01. 01.07.2022 RRR, J
Sri S.Sai Kiran, learned counsel takes
notice for respondents No. 7 and 8 and seeks
time for filing counter.
The petitioner had undertaken the
exercise of making a layout over an extent of
8.10 acres of land in Nagarampalem Vilalge,
Rajapulova Village and Cherukupalli village of
Vizianagaram District in the year 2010-2011.
Thereafter, the 4th respondent had issued a
notice to the petitioner to show cause as to
why penalty and seigniorage fee should not be
collected from the petitioner in relation to
55,428 cubic meters of gravel and 4586.40
cubic meters of ordinary earth. It is said to
have been used for formation of roads in the
said layout. The petitioner had filed his
objections to the same. The 4th respondent
had thereafter issued a demand notice dated
18.12.2020 calling upon the petitioner to pay a
sum of Rs.70,69,887/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner challenged the said demand notice
before this Court by way of the Writ Petition
No.13671 of 2021. This Court by an order
dated 16.07.2021 had disposed of the Writ
Petition with a direction to the respondents to
consider the explanation given by the
petitioner again and not to take any coercive
steps against the petitioner pursuant the
demand notice dated 18.12.2020 and
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
consequent notice dated 08.04.2021
Consequent to the said order, the 4th
respondent again passed a fresh order dated
08.12.2021 rejecting the contentions raised by
the petitioner.
It is the case of the petitioner that the
earth used in the formation of the road was
excavated within the layout area and as such
would not attract any seigniorage fee. The
petitioner relies upon the judgment of this
Court dated 06.07.2020 in W.P.No.41929 of
2018.
The petitioner states that the petitioner
was unaware of the orders passed on
08.12.2021 and came to know of the same
only when the Visakhapatnam Metropolitan
Regional Development Authority directed the
petitioner, by endorsement dated 07.06.2022
to obtain No Objection Certificate from the
Assistant Director of Mines and Geology
Department on account of the demand notice
dated 08.12.2021 and to pay the penalty
amount Rs.55,93,265/- fixed payable under
the said demand notice.
The petitioner being aggrieved by the
said demand notice dated 08.12.2021 and
consequential endorsement dated 07.06.2022
as well as the earlier notice of 08.04.2021 has
approached this Court by way of the present
Writ Petition.
As far as the challenge to the demand
notice dated 08.12.2021 is concerned, the
same requires a verification of facts which can
be done more appropriately under a revision or
appeal filed by the petitioner under the
provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Minor and
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
Mineral Concession Rules. To that extent, it is
left open to the petitioner to exercise his rights.
As far as the consequential notice dated
08.04.2021 and the endorsement of the 8th
respondent dated 07.06.2022 are concerned,
the same create a stay over any sale of plots by
the petitioner.
Prima facie, the restriction placed on the
right of the petitioner to sell the plots in the
said layout does not appear to be supported by
any provision of law.
In the circumstances, it would be
appropriate to grant an interim direction to the
respondents not to stop registration of any
transactions carried out by the petitioner, on
the ground of pending demand, provided the
said documents are in order otherwise.
Post on 12.07.2022.
________
RRR, J
Ssp/Mja
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
