M/S.Ayyappa Stone Crushers vs State Of Telangana And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1310 Tel

                 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..."

W.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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

WRIT PETITION Nos.44043 of 2022, 3557 of 2015 and 38122 of

17th March, 2023

PSW