The High Court · 2025

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Orders or Direction, particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus.- a. Declaring the action of the Respondents no. 3 to 6 in trying to undertake activities of construction of internal roads in Survey No. 174 of Yenthakalan Village, Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad District, in the demarcated mining lease area admeasuring 12.667 equivalent toAc. 31-12 gts hectares in Sy. No. '174 of Yenthakalan Village, Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad District, without considering the mining lease .proceedings and the rights of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and in violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the constitution of lndia. b. consequenfly, direct the Respondents not to proceed with or undertake any construction activity, including road laying or other civil works, in the demarcated mining lease area admeasuring 12.667 equivalent toAc. 31-12 gts hectares in Sy. No. 174 of Yenthakalari Village, Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad District, as per the lease proceedings in favour of the petitioner. |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to restrain the Respondents no. 3 to 6 from carrying out any construction, including road laying or other civil works, in the demarcated mining lease area admeasuring 12.667 hectares equivalent to Ac. 31-12 gts in sy. No. 1 74 of yenthakalan village, Mominpet Mandal, vikarabad District, as per the lease proceedings initiated in favor of the Petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition. !.A.NO:2 OF 2025 Between

1. Telangana lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Limited, Rep by its Vice chairman and Managing Director 6th Floor,.parisrama'ehavari Fltln rraaioan Road, Basheerbagh.

2. Telaiigana tn{ystriat tnfrastructlre Coaili?dtiod Limited, Rep by its Chief Engineer 6th Floor, Parisrama Bhavan, Fateh Maidan noa<i, e'astreei'Oagn. I ....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 5 & 6 AND

1. N. Damodar Reddy, S/o. Late N. Venkat Reddv, Business, No 7-172, Maheshwaram _Mandal ,Kon Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. Aged 71 years, Occ ; gara Khurdu, Raviryal, .....PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 'lH;J31"r"":I"".':&t3R?#J^?,1,311.o"??l",ll;"#fi ffi "Representedbvits ;li*I*..rr;.".. . r . . :ii,*i:e;i'lHi*rYri:* r:. I j ,l

3. The State of Telangana, Revenue Department Represented by its Principal Secretary BRKR Bhavan, Secretariat Building.

4. District Collector, Vikarabad District lntegrated District Offices Complex, Parigi Road, Vikarabad.

5. Tahsildar, Mominpet Mandal. ....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition Under Section 151 QPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the order dated 22-07-2025 in W.P.No.21316 ot 2025. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : AGP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6 : SRI M.SRIKANTH REDDY, SC FOR TGIIC The Court made the following ORDER .rali.1i -.r-'+ 1' i L s- ry$*qialt-re-alr'-d. . .:....'.". \. .i...:,.' I .,--...-<r.+-4-+-. ! t: l I I i I I I ; i i I I "'l .il ;'';;S*rst**( i*Si il -7 a IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.21316 of 2025 Dated: o,4.12.2o.25 Between: N.Damodar Reddy ... Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Mines and Geologr Department Represented by its Principal Secretar5r, BRKR Bhavan and five others . Respondents ORDER This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of tndia seeking the following relief/s:- "... to issue a Writ, Orders or Direction, particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus:- a a- b. De'claring the action of the Respondents no.3 to 6 in tryrng to undertake activities of construction of internal roads in Survey No.174 of Yenkathala Village, Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad District, in the demarcated mining lease area admeasuring 12.667 equivalent'to Ac.31-12 gts hectares in Sy.No.L74 of Yenkathala Village, Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad District, without considering the mining lease proceedings and the rights of the Petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and in violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of tndia; Consequently, direct the Respondents not to proceed with or undertake any construction activity, including road laying or other civil works, in the demarcated. mining lease area admeasuring L2.66T equivalent to Ac.31-12 gts hectares in Sy.No.174 of yenkathala Village, Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad District, as per the lease proceedings in favour of the,pertitianqri l \ t. -' , 2 c. And pass such further order or orders ..."

2. Heard Mr.R.Anurag, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geolory appearing for respondent No.1, Ms.Snehitha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Mr.M.Srikanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGIIC appearing for respond.ent Nos.S and 6. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has made an application for grant of a mining lease for a period of twenty (2Ol years for extraction of Laterite, over the land situated in Sy.No.174 of Yenkathala Village, Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad District. Pursuant thereto, the Oflice of respondent No.4/Tahsildar, conducted field enquiry and submitted a report vide Letter' No.B/3877 ILO dated 06.05.2011 stating that an extent of land admeasuring Acs.29.O6 gts, out of the total land in Sy.No .I74 is covered by hillock and is therefore, suitable for quarrying purposes. Accordingly, issued 'Ir[o objection Certificate' permitting the proposed mining activity in the said land. Later, the Assistant Director, Mines & GeoloyTand.ur, Ranga Reddy District conducted field surveys, inspections a!-4 ig.gued S / / i I ?t J No.4923 /R2 /2016 dated 19.08.2016 by rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without assigning iustifiable reasons. Against which, the petitioner preferred. a Revision. vide Memo No.2759 /M.r(21/2017 dated 11.oB.2oLT the said rejection order was set aside. Later, a joint survey was conducted and the leased area was demarcated. by the concerned authorities. The Department of Mines and Geolory, Hyderabad vide Notice bearing No.6g 12/R2-l/2olg-2 dated Lo.l2.2o2r informed that an extent of 12.662 hectares i.e., Acs.3L-12 gts in Sy.No. lr4 of yenkathala village, Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad District was proposed for granting mining lease. Pursuant to such demarcation, a draft euarry plan was submitted by the petitioner, for scrutiny before the Deputy Director, Mines & Geologr and after enquiry, the quarry plan was finalized and communicated to the petitioner. 4. It is further stated that on Lg.or.2o2s, respondent Nos.S and 6 started leveling activities on the subject land by engaging men and machinery. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the revenue authorities for enquiring as to how the land which is under active consideration for the purpose of mining minerals is being S. a ..*ir&ir 4 .'-.-\ Then, respondent No.4 informed that the land has been allotted to respondent Nos.S and 6. Further, the documents indicated that e-tender notifications were issued for formation of roads. The petitioner states that the action of the respondent authorities in allotting the land to respondent Nos.S and 6, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without taking into consideration the approved mining lease proceedings, is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Hence, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tender notice issued by the revenue authorities overlaps with the area earmarked for mining lease and obstructs the lawful right of the petitioner to ctrry out mining operations. He states that the ongoing construction causes damage to the mineral bearing zorLe and affects th.e viability of the mining activity. Therefore, he seeks to pass appropriate orders.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geolory appearing for respondent No.l, by filing counter affidavit contends that the Director of Mines & Geolory, Hyderabad directed the Office to submit 'the DGPS maps covering the mineral deposit of the petitioner along with specific recommendations, so as to take further action in the r' / t ,/ / - 5 matter vide Lr.No.3160180/R2-1 l2o2s, dated L3.06.2o2s. Accordingly, the office surveyor along with empanelled agency M/s. Tecadatum Infoservices Private Limited conducted DGps Survey on 13.06.2025 and demarcated the apptied area over an extent of 12.667 Hectares of land of the petitioner based upon the Noc, recommended sketch by the Tahsildar, Mominpet Mandal vide No.B/3877 /2olo, dated 06.0s.2011 and submitted their report to the office for taking necessary action. He states that the office submitted draft DGPS sketch prepared by the empanelled agency along with geo-coordinates to the DM&G, Hyderabad for approval vide Lr-No.6092/M/2o10, dated 2L.06.2o2s and same is pending consideration for grant of permission. Therefore, he seeks to pass appropriate orders.

7. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Assignment appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 contends that the subject land is not allotted to the petitioner and it is vested with the I Government. Therefore, she contends that respondent Nos.2 to 4 are only formal parties to this writ petition and. seeks to dismiss tfu: Writ Petition.

8. Learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.S and 6 by filing vacate stay petition contends that the subject land is 6 legally handed over to TGIIC by the Government and developmental activities are proceeding strictly in accordance with larv. He states that the belated objections raised by the petitioner are nct tenable and likely to cause hindrance to the public interest. By virtue of the interim order granted by this Court, further activities are kept in hold. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition

9. Having regard to the submissions of all the learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner was never allotted any mining lease so far and stating that the petitioner is in possession of the property basing on the application filed by him does not hold any merit unless the petitioner demonstrates his case by filing necessary documents to show that he is in the possession of the property. Moreover, the petitioner cannot agitate his rights in the present Writ Petition. Hence, this Writ Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ( I / 7 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if afly, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. sD/-P. NNA KRISHNA T REGIS //TRUE COPY/ \ \ To Telangana at HYderab'rg.- [gVJl.

1. Two CCs to GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY, High 2. rwo ics to GPFoR ASSIGNMENT, High court for 3. Ohe CC to SRI RANURAG, Advocate t9fqql- -- 4. On" CC to SRI M.SRIKANTH REDDY, SC FOR TGI 5. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad. [OUTI SA (? N OFFICER r the State of the State of Telangana at lC, Advocate (OPUC) I HIGH COURT DATED i0411212025 ORDER ,l WP.No.21316 of 2025 r-..,-. . taftr*r "'ftry "*f . .-., r-aa--.--.. --- 4<-FF-- -. .*<---.,. ttr:i*' -. -".' -' Hrr rlr ! r1r-afiaaa:1flmtll- DISMISSI NG rHE :W.P,.:. :. -i.i. r !'f, r!.i L-E- WITHOUT COSTS. n rfl'a Xro Y O:T i HES t4 <) 0 I JAN 2U2b * i: -! i