M/S. Saleem Metal Industries vs The State Of Telangana And 6 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 441 Tel

           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:

JUDGMENT: (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

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

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

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.

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.

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