Yangala Venkata Ramanamma vs The State Of Ap
2022 Latest Caselaw 2517 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

                        W.P.No13145 of 2021

ORDER:

Petitioners pray for mandamus declaring the action of

respondents in not processing the mining lease application of 1st

petitioner's deceased husband Y.A. Perlingam in spite of specific

directions issued by the High Court in W.P.No.12119/1990 and

10283/ 2010 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of APMMC Rules,

1966 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant

quarry lease to petitioners in respect of the land in an extent of

Ac.15.00 cents in Sy.No.55/5 of R.L. Puram Village, Chimakurthy

Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Petitioners' case succinctly is thus:

(a) Petitioners are wife and daughter of late Y.A. Perlingam.

He filed application for quarry lease for black galaxy granite in an

extent of Ac.15.00 cents in Sy.No.55/5 of R.L. Puram, Chimakurthy

Mandal, Prakasam District vide application No.1014/M7/88, dated

10.03.1988. Though the said application was processed by the

Government, however it was not finalized for a long period and hence

he filed W.P.No.12119/1990 before the Common High Court of

Andhra Pradesh which was disposed of on 30.04.1993 with a direction

to the Government to complete the suo moto examination and process

the application expeditiously and also pass orders on his applications

dated 11.09.1985 and 20.12.1989 by excluding the land for which the

quarry was already granted in favour of third parties i.e., P. Rama

Rao.

(b) While so, in the meanwhile W.P.No.30650/1997 and

W.P.No.26142/2001 and batch were filed by various Granite

Industrialists challenging the decision of the Government in reserving

the land to an extent of 61.50 cents in Sy.No.55/5, Rajupalem

Lakshmipuram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District in

favour of Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation (for

short "APMDC")/2nd respondent. The said batch of writ petitions

were allowed by learned single Judge vide order dated 28.03.2002.

Aggrieved the Government of Andhra Pradesh and APMDC filed writ

appeal Nos.1000/2002 and batch, which were allowed. Challenging

the same, some parties filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court

which is pending. Thus, the above controversy is only with regard to

Ac.66.00 cents of the land in Sy.No.55/5 which was earmarked for

APMDC. However still there is a balance of Ac.15.00 cents available

in Sy.No.55/5. In respect of the said land orders were passed in

W.P.No.12119/1990 filed by the husband of the 1st petitioner.

However, authorities have not processed his application. In the

meantime the husband of 1st petitioner died on 06.03.2006.

Petitioners got filed W.P.No.10283/2010 before the High Court of

Andhra Pradesh wherein an order dated 29.04.2010 was passed

directing to consider the material on record and dispose of his

representation dated 04.05.2008 within a period of three months.

Thereafter much correspondence has taken place but the respondents

have not granted lease in favour of petitioners.

(b) It is further submitted that after demise of 1st petitioner's

husband, some third parties claiming themselves as partners along

with him in M/s Sri Srinivasa Industries, filed applications before

Mining Authorities claiming that they are entitled to continue quarry

lease applications. Petitioners are not aware of those applications and

in fact her husband is sole proprietor of M/s Sri Srinivasa Industries

and it is not a partnership firm.

(c) While so, petitioners filed representation dated 17.06.2021

narrating all the events and requested to process the application of late

Y.A. Perlingam and grant mining lease. However, till date the

respondent authorities did not consider the representation. Hence the

writ petition.

3. Respondents 1, 3 and 4 filed counter opposing the writ petition

contending thus:

(a) Sy.No.55/5 of R.L. Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal

consist of Ac.86.50 cents out of which Ac.25.00 cents were granted to

third parties, who filed applications prior to Y. A. Perlingam of M/s

Sri Srinivasa Mining Industries and the remaining Ac.61.50 cents

have been reserved in favour of APMDC Ltd. Thus there is no free

area available to grant in Sy.No.55/5, R.L. Puram to anybody.

(b) It is further submitted that Sri Srinivasa Mining Industries filed

quarry lease application dated 11.09.1985 for grant of black galaxy

granite in Sy.No.55/5 of R.L. Puram which was rejected by Deputy

Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur vide Proc.No.4284/Q/1985,

dated 06.01.1986 as their applied area overlapping with already

recommended area for M/s Victoria Granites. Aggrieved, the

applicant filed revision before the Government and later filed

WP.No.12112/1990 wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh

passed orders on 30.04.1993 directing the Secretary, Industries and

Commerce Department to complete suo moto examination of the issue

within three months and pass order on his application dated

11.09.1985. The revision authority also passed orders dated

06.01.1986 in similar lines. Thereafter the Deputy Director of Mines

and Geology, Guntur vide his proceedings No.3041/G2/1990, dated

07.10.1993 passed order rejecting the quarry lease application of Sri

Srinivasa Mining Industries. Thereafter the Government granted

quarry lease in favour of M/s Victoria Granites vide G.O.Ms.No.157,

Industries and Commerce (M.II) Department dated 20.04.1994 for an

extent of Ac.25.00 cents.

(c) Thereafter the Government of Andhra Pradesh reserved the

balance extent of Ac.61.50 for APMDC. Aggrieved Y.A. Perlingam

filed W.P.No.11825 of 1998 and 13 other applicants also filed

separate writ petitions challenging the G.O.Ms.No.267, dated

27.09.1997 reserving the area for APMDC. In the meanwhile the

Central Government vide letter dated 29.10.1999 granted approval

under section 17A(2) of Mines and Mineral (Development and

Regulation) (for short "MMDR") Act, 1957 for reservation of the area

in favour of APMDC with conditions that reservation shall not be

applicable in case of already granted areas and approval is subject to

outcome of any Court cases. Accordingly the State Government vide

G.O.Ms.No.72, dated 14.02.2002 issued orders reserving an extent of

Ac.61.50 cents in Sy.No.55/5, R.L. Puram Village in favour of

APMDC. While so, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its common

order dated 28.03.2002 allowed the said batch of writ petitions and

directed the State Government to consider the mining lease

applications and dispose the same in accordance with law including

that of the petitioners. Aggrieved the State Government and APMDC

preferred writ appeal against common orders dated 28.03.2002 passed

in W.P.No.11825/1998 and batch. While so the petitioners and some

others filed WPs against G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 14.02.2002. The High

Court passed common order dated 24.03.2004 in writ appeal

Nos.1000/2002 and batch and also in W.P.No.9969/2002 and upheld

the order of reservation enabling the APMDC to undertake mining

operations in the very same land. It was held that neither the

petitioner nor 8th respondent are entitled to consideration of any of

their applications and no quarry lease shall be granted in their favour.

As against the said common order, Y.A. Perlingam has not preferred

any appeal before Hon'ble Apex Court. However M/s Pallava

Granites Industries and others filed civil appeal in Supreme Court

against the common order dated 24.03.2004 and Hon'ble Supreme

Court vide order dated 07.11.2006 in SLP C.No.15690-15695 of 2004

upheld the State Government's order of reserving Ac.61.50 cents for

mining operations through APMDC Ltd.

(d) While so, Sri P. Venkata Ramana in the capacity of Proprietor

of M/s Sri Srinivasa Mining Industries filed W.P.No.2824/2021,

W.P.No.16459/2021 and CC No.1123/2021 but he failed to

demonstrate how he became the proprietor of the said firm because

records showed the name of Y. A Perlingam as proprietor and he filed

application in his individual capacity. Added to it, the petitioners i.e.,

legal heirs of Y. A. Perlingam made a representation dated 17.06.2021

stating that Y.A Perlingam was expired on 06.03.2006 and they may

be considered for awarding mining lease on merits. However, in

view of facts and circumstances stated supra, no free area is available

to grant quarry lease to any of the 3rd parties out of Ac.86.50 cents in

the Sy.No.55/5. The respondents thus prayed to dismiss the writ

petition.

4. Heard Sri Somisetty Ganesh Babu, learned Counsel for the

petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and

Geology representing respondents 1 to 4 and learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondents 5 and 6.

5. Both the learned counsel reiterated their pleadings in their

respective arguments. While it is submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioners that 1st petitioner's husband submitted application for grant

of lease of black galaxy granite for an extent of Ac.15.00 cents in

Sy.No.55/5 long ago in the year 1985 and the said land has nothing to

do with Ac.61.50 cents of land earmarked by the Government of

Andhra Pradesh for APMDC and since the application of the 1st

petitioner's husband was the oldest one and in two successive writ

petitions Hon'be High Court directed the respondent authorities to

consider the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate order,

the respondents shall consider the application of the petitioner

favourably for grant of lease in an extent of Ac.15.00 cents in favour

of petitioners who are the legal representatives of deceased Y.A.

Perlingam.

6. In oppugnation, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Mines and Geology would argue that the total extent of land in

Sy.No.55/5 in R.L. Puram is only 86.50 cents and out of the said land

the State Government reserved 61.50 cents in favour of APMDC and

after long drawn litigation, Hon'ble Apex Court approved the

reservation of Ac.61.50 cents in favour of APMDC. He would

further submit that the balance extent of Ac.25.00 cents is concerned,

the same was conferred in favour of M/s Victoria Granites who is the

earliest applicant and therefore no free land in Sy.No.55/5 is available

to consider any other 3rd party applicants, including the petitioners.

7. I gave my anxious consideration to above respective arguments.

Indisputably, the total land in Sy.No.55/5 of R.L. Puram,

Chimakurthy Mandal, is Ac.86.50 cents. Out of the said land it

appears the Government of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the

application dated 07.11.1994 of APMDC a State Government

undertaking which is engaged in the exploration and exploitation of

various minerals in the State, decided to reserve an extent of Ac.61.50

cents in Sy.No.55/5 of RL Puram for APMDC excluding existing

quarry leases. Accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.267, Industries and

Commerce (M.II) Department, dated 27.09.1997 was issued.

However, it appears the Government of Andhra Pradesh has not

obtained prior approval of the Central Government under Section

17A(2) of MMDR Act. The said G.O. was challenged by Y.A.

Perlingam and others in W.P.No.11825/1998 and batch which were

allowed by the learned single Judge on the ground that prior approval

of Central Government was not obtained. Aggrieved, the Government

of Andhra Pradesh as well as APMDC have filed writ appeal

No.1000/2002 and batch and in the meanwhile the Government of

Andhra Pradesh obtained permission of the Central Government and

thereafter issued G.O.Ms.No.72, dated 14.02.2002 and the said G.O.

was also challenged and writ petitions were filed. Challenging the

same, it appears the parties filed SLP SLP C.No.15690-15695 of 2004

and batch and Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the civil appeals and

observed as follows:

"As stated above, the property belongs to the State Government. The mineral vests in the State Government. The State has decided to earn more revenue by inviting global tenders. The State has obtained the prior approval of the Central Government. The Central Government has restricted its approval to an area

admeasuring Ac.61.50 cents. In the circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the State Government's order of reserving the area admeasuring Acs.61.50 for mining operations through APMDC or through private/public sector enterprises. We reiterate that the rights, if any, under G.O.No.1290 were inchoate rights. These rights never stood crystallized. No mining lease was ever granted by the State Government to the appellants. In the circumstances, there was no bar in reserving an area admeasuring Acs.61.50 for exploitation of galaxy granite through State public sector undertaking."

With the above observation the Supreme Court dismissed the

appeals. Thus, I find force in the submission of learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Mines and Geology that out of Ac.86.50

cents of land, an extent of Ac.61.50 cents is not available for granting

mining lease since the said extent was earmarked for APMDC.

8. The balance extent of Ac.25.00 cents is concerned, the

submission of respondent authorities is that the said extent was

initially leased to one Sri P. Rama Rao and some others by the

Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur. However a suo moto enquiry

was conducted by the Government and cancelled the said leases and

granted the entire extent of Ac.25.00 cents in favour of M/s Victoria

Granites as its application dated 17.05.1985 was the earliest one and

accordingly issued G.O.Ms.No.157, dated 02.04.1994. The

application of Y.A. Perlingam submitted on behalf of M/s Sri

Srinivasa Industries being on 11.09.1985 which was subsequent to the

application of M/s Victoria Granites, his request was not considered

for the said extent of Ac.25.00 cents. Thus, the contention of

respondent authorities is that the remaining Ac.25.00 cents is also not

available for granting mining lease in favour of any of the 3rd parties

including the petitioners. To sum up their contention, the total extent

of Ac.86.50 cents in Sy.No.55/5 of R.L. Puram is not freely available

to consider the applications of any of the 3rd parties including the

petitioners. In this context, I perused a copy of the letter

No.31677/83(2)/90, dated 21.03.1997 addressed by the Director of

Mines and Geology, Hyderabad to Y.A. Perlingam which would show

that initially an extent of Ac.25.00 cents in Sy.No.55/5 was leased out

to Sri P. Rama Rao and some others by Deputy Director and it appears

in view of the complaint made by the earlier applicant i.e., M/s

Victoria Granite, the Government conducted suo moto enquiry and

revised the leases granted in favour of P. Rama Rao and others and

granted an extent of Ac.25.00 cents in favour of M/s Victoria Granites

(P) Ltd., considering that their application dated 17.05.1985 was the

earliest one and issued G.O.Ms.No.157, Industries and Commerce

(M.II) Department dated 20.04.1994.

9. The letter addressed by the Director of Mines to Y. A.

Perlingam further shows that challenging the G.O.Ms.No.157, dated

02.04.1994 issued by the Government, P. Rama Rao and others filed

Writ Petition and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had set aside the

G.O.Ms.No.157 and confirmed the earlier leases granted in favour of

P. Rama Rao and others vide judgment dated 04.12.1995 in

W.P.No.6592/1994. Aggrieved by the said order M/s Victorian

Granites filed SLP No.5859/1996 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India and Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.12368/1996,

dated 09.09.1996 set aside the orders of the High Court and confirmed

the G.O.Ms.No.157, Industries and Commerce (M.II) Department,

dated 23.04.1994. In the above letter while succinctly narrating the

legal history of Ac.25.00 cents, the Director has stated that the

application of Y.A. Perlingam was dated 11.09.1985 which was

subsequent to the application of M/s Victorian Granites and therefore

the rejection order passed in respect of his application dated

11.09.1985 holds good.

10. Thus on a conspectus of facts and law, I find no merits in the

writ petition filed by the present petitioners being the LRs of late Y.A.

Perlingam as no free land out of Ac.86.50 cents in Sy.No.55/5 of R.L.

Puram is available to consider the request of the petitioners or any

other 3rd parties.

11. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 14.06.2022 krk

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

Writ Petition No.13145 of 2021

14th June, 2022

krk