Writ Petition No. 12788 of 2006 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

In difference to the orders of the District Collector, Krishna communicated through the Mandal Revenue Officer, the petitioner stopped the work in the Reach by the evening of 6th August, 2005 and the same was duly communicated to the 2nd respondent – District Panchayat Officer, by letter dated 29-8-2005. It is also stated that there was a recede in the flood waters, the petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent – M.R.O. on 9-11- 2005 to allow the petitioner to start the “sand quarrying” as the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and hardship and consequently suffered deprivation of livelihood owing to non-operation of the quarrying. Meanwhile, the petitioner received a notice from the 3rd respondent dated 10-11-2005 conveying to start the quarrying since the floodwater receded. It is further stated that the M.R.O. informed about the stoppage of work in Vellurupalem Sand Reach from 6-8-2005 to 10-11-2005 vide his letter dated 15-11-2005 to the District Panchayat Officer, Krishna.

It is also further stated that due to stoppage of work and non-operation of quarrying from 6-8-2005 to 10-11-2005 the petitioner suffered irreparable loss and the petitioner made a representation on 1-12-2005 to the District Level Committee who is the competent authority to consider the loss sustained by the petitioner for a period of 97 days and deprived of his livelihood. It was further stated that the petitioner all along with a fond hope and bona fide impression that his representation will be considered favourably taking the facts and circumstances narrated in his representation but however to his utter dismay, the petitioner received impugned order in R.O.C.No.193/2005 N-7 dated 30-12-2005 from the 2nd respondent – District Panchayat Officer stating that if the District Level Committee rejected the representation dated 1-12-205 in its resolution No.3 dated 27-12-2005, without assigning the reasons for rejection of his representation, by merely stating that they are rejecting the representation. In accordance with clause 20 of the Annexure the Agreement

It is also stated that the petitioner should have brought the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Thotlavalluru dt.6-8-2005 and requested permission from the competent authority to stop the sand mining as per the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Thotlavalluru without permission of the District Level Sand Committee. It is further stated that it is not known whether the petitioner has really stopped sand mining or not and further as per the agreement that petitioner would bind over for any lapses, losses and obstructions if anything happened during the lease period and therefore he has no right to claim the extension of lease period as the alleged stoppage of sand quarry by the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, who has no authority to issue any such orders. It is also further stated that the petitioner and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Thotlavalluru have brought the matter of alleged stoppage of sand quarrying but the District Level Sand Committee, Krishna in its meeting held on 27-12-2005 has passed respondent No.3 in which the request of the petitioner was rejected on the grounds the Mandal Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to give stopping order of sand quarry, condition 20 of the agreement the government is not responsible for any loss, interruptions, hurdles caused due to any reason and therefore the petitioner was informed the same in the office letter dt.30-12-2005.

It is further stated that the letter issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer dt.10-11-2005 in favour of the petitioner speaks about the restarting of sand quarry by the p. It is also further stated that the very same Mandal Revenue Officer issued the certificate mentioning the alleged stoppage of sand quarry by the petitioner is based on a report of Panchayat Secretary dt.14-11-2005. It is also further stated that the two letters of the Mandal Revenue Officer i.e., respondent No.3 clearly goes to show that there was no stoppage of sand quarry as alleged by the petitioner, on the instructions of the Mandal Revenue Officer. It is also further stated that the petitioner should abide by the agreement in which he agreed to bear the losses, lapses and obstructing during the lease period and therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim the extension of the lease period of allege stoppage of sand quarries, considering the above aspect District Level Sand Committee has rejected the request of the petitioner in resolution No.3 dt.27-12-2005.

It is also stated that the orders if any should have been issued for the stoppage of sand quarrying only by the authority competent i.e., District Level Sand Committee. In the present case, no orders were issued by the authority competent and as submitted earlier, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Totlavalluru has no jurisdiction to issue any orders with regard to sand quarry. It is further stated to the both the petitioner and Mandal Revenue Officer should have brought the alleged situation to the notice of the District Level Sand Committee and it would have been considered by the District Level Sand Committee to take appropriate action in the matter and the District Level Sand Committee has rejected the representation of the petitioner dt.1-12-2005 on the grounds that petitioner should bear the loss if any as per the agreement deed made by him. It is also further stated that some of the lessees were considered for the extension of lease rights for the periods as the competent authority has issued stoppage orders and the District Level Sand Committee has agreed for such extensions.

It is further stated that the lessee of Damuluru sand reach was prohibited form sand by both to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpatnam. It is also stated that Executive Engineer, P.R., Vijayawada as the Executive Engineer, P.R., Vijayawada was executing the work of road to sand reach and both the above officials have issued certificate to that effect. It is also further stated that the District Level Sand Committee has considered the certificates issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, and Executive Engineer, P.R., therefore the District Level Sand Committee has agreed for the extension of lease period and accordingly granted the extension of his lease rights for the said period. It is further stated that the District Level Sand Committee has rejected the request of the lease holder of K.Kothapalem on the ground that lessee are responsible for the loss sustained during the lease period as per the agreement deed executed by them and aggrieved by the above orders they have approached the Government and Government issued orders for the extension of lease periods with the direction for the District Panchayat Officer to verify the way bills during the period former lessees was returned the used and unused way bills to issue orders accordingly and as such the extension of lease period was granted to such lease holders.

It is further stated that the District Level Sand Committee is authority competent to discuss the facts and to take a decision basing on the facts of each case as per the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1 I & C Dt.1-1-2001 and in the distance case the District Level Sand Committee considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected on merits. It is also further stated that the facts in Writ Appeal No.415/2006 are totally different wherein the orders for stoppage of sand quarry was passed either by the authority competent or by the Court and in the Writ Petition No.7549/2006 this Court as only directed the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner in that case and wherein in the present case, the representation of the petitioner has already been considered and rejected on its merits.