Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kusukurthi Radha Krishna, S/O. Subba ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 November, 2024
APHC010114202015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 10738 OF 2015
Between:
Kusukurthi Radha Krishna, S/o. Subba Rao, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)
2. GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
-
Both the writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for the following relief:-
"to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the notice Demand Notice No. 1442/Vg/2014-02, dated
rd
16.03.2015 issued by the 3 respondent thereby demanding to pay Rs. 2,53,550/-
towards normal Seigniorage Fee, TDS and an amount of Rs. 12,67,750/- towards five
times Penalty as illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the A.P.
Minor, Mineral Concession Rules and particularly the law laid down by this Hon‟ble
Court in the judgment reported in 2013(4) ALD 490 and to set aside the said notice
and pass such other order or orders......."
2. The precise case of the petitioners is that they approached the
Country and Town Planning and approved the lay out plan their lands in
R.S.Nos. 16/1, 16/2, 15/1 of Palakollu Rural Village and Mandal vide
L.P.No.106/12. After obtaining lay out plan approval, they levelled the land
without filling any gravel from outside. After demarcating the entire land, the
petitioners have sold the same to the respective plot owners under various
registered sale deeds. While the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent issued
show cause notice to the respective plot owners dated 20.11.2014, thereby
requesting the Sub-Registrar, Palakolu not to entertain any document
pertaining to subject land. The 3rd respondent prior to the demand notice has
issued a show cause notice dated 16.02.2015 alleging that the petitioners
have consumed 10,203/- cubic meters of ordinary earth and 1,322 cubic
meters of gravel for filling the site and asked them to submit explanation.
Accordingly, the petitioners have submitted explanation, but the 3rd
respondent instead of dropping further proceedings, directed the petitioners to
pay Rs. 2,53,550/- towards normal Seigniorage Fee, TDS and an amount of
Rs. 12,67,750/- towards five times penalty in different heads under Rule 26 of
A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, which is highly illegal and
arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed.
3. Heard Mr. Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Ms. P.Sudeepti, learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mines
and Geology for the respondents.
4. Perused the record.
5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that
the 3rd respondent issued demand notice to the petitioners without considering
the explanation submitted by the petitioner in earlier show-cause notice is
highly illegal and arbitrary and also contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.37 Industries
and Commerce (M.II) Department dated 14.03.2016 and also G.O.Ms.No.139,
Industries and Commerce Department dated 12.11.2013. Further, he relied on
a decision of this Court in "Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., Mumbai v. State of
Andhra Pradesh and Others"1, wherein it was held as follows:-
"13. Two expressions employed in this regard need to be understood: any
person, who is granted lease to quarry any minor mineral is placed under
obligation to pay the „dead rent‟ and/ or seigniorage fee‟. While „dead rent‟ is
payable on a flat rate, depending on the area, for every year, seigniorage fee
is levied on the mineral that is excavated. Even if a lessee did not undertake
any activity of mining, after the lease was granted, an agreement is entered
into, and he will be under obligation to pay the dead rent, at a specified rate
for each hectare of land or part thereof, once in every year. Seigiorage fee
however becomes payable only when the mineral is extracted or excavated
and it is sought to be taken away from the leased area. This is evident from
Rule 10(3)(b) of the Rules:
"10. Seigniorage fee or dead rent:
(1)xxx
2013(4) ALD 490
(2)xxx
(3) When the quarry lease is granted-
(b) the seigniorage fee shall be paid before the mineral is removed from the
leased area".
6. Following the principle laid down by this Court cited supra, this Court
opined that the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent is quite contrary
to the G.O.Ms.No. 37, dated 14.03.2016. Further, this Court passed order
dated 19.08.2024 in W.P.No.15173 of 2018 and batch, which is squarely
applicable to the facts of this Court. Therefore, the impugned notice dated
16.03.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent is declaring as illegal and arbitrary
and same is hereby set aside.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
______________________________
DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
Date: 18.11.2024
KK
