High Court · 2025

Judgment

3. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Dept of lvlines and Geology Secretariat, Hyderabad. District Collector and Chairperson District Level Sand committee District Collectorate, MuluguTelangana. M/s Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Rep By its Vice Chairman and Manging Director Khairtabad, Hyderabad, Telangana

4. Assistant Director of Mines and Geology Mulugu, Mulugu District, Telangana ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of respondent no.3 from decasting the petitioners patta lands is against the Article 19(1)(g) and 21 ot the Constitution of lndia and direct the Respondent No.2 and 4 further to allow the period of decasting of sand for another 6 months and respondent no. 3 to decast the sand lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in :;upport of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 and4 to further allow the period of decasting of sand for another 6 months ernd respondeni no. 3 to decast the sand within the stipulated period. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI RAMESH BABU VISHWANATHULA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,2 and 4: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI B. RAMULU, SC The Court made thr: following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.34285 of 2024 ORDER: Heard leamed counsel for petitioners, leamed Govemment Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing on behatf of respondent Nos.l, 2 & 4 ar.Ld Sri B.Ramulu, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, and perused the record. With the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that they are owners and possessors of marginal extents of land in Veerabhadrapuram village, Venkatapuram Mandal, Mulugu District; that their lands are adjoining to Godavari fuver; and that due to floods to Godavari River, every year their lands are casted with sand.

3. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Telangana State Sand Mining Rules, 2015 in particular Rule 7 provides for de-casting of sand from the patta lands, and accordingly, petitioners have approached the 4e respondent and submitted 2 application dated 27-07-2020 for de<asting ol sand from their

4. Petitioners further contend that though the District Level Sand Committee headed by the District Collector vide proceedings dt.29-06-2oll had permitted the father of 2nd petitioner herein and two others to de-cast 39453 cubic mts of sand from their patta lands through the 3'd respondent and the petitioners having entered into an agreement with the 3d respondent, de_casting of sand has not been undertaken till date.

5. Petitioners further contend that as a result of non_de_ casting of sand from their patta lands, they are unable to undertake the cultivation.

6. Per contra, leamed Govemment pleader appeaflng on behalf of respondent Nos.r, 2 and 4 would submit that the 2nd respondent had granted permission for de_casting of sand for six months period from the date of entering into agreement by 3d respondent with the 4th respondent and by the time the agreement was entered into by 3'd respondent with 4fr respondent after obtaining necessary approvals, the period ofsix months under \.- ./' 3 the proceedings dated 29-06-2021 had lapsed and as such, de- casting ofsand from petitioners' land could not be undertaken.

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 on the other hand would submit that if only the 2nd respondent had granted extension of time for de-casting of sand from petitioners' land by extending the validity of six months period granted under the proceedings dated 29-06-2021, the 3'd respondent could have undertaken de-casting of sand from petitioners' patta lands.

8. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since the proceedings under which the 2nd respondent had permitted de-casting of sand from petitioners' land is of the year 2021, the petitioners may be directed to submit a fresh application for the same to be considered by the 2nd respondent.

9. I have taken note of respective contentions urged.

10. Though, a submission is made on behalf of 2nd respondent as to the proceeding issued on 29-06-2021 having lapsed, and thus, the petitioners are required to approach the respondent authorities once again for de-casting of sand from their'patta lands, it is not 4 shown to this Court that the respondent authorities in particular respondent No.3 having initiated any action pursuant to the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent ort 29-06_202r for de-casting the sand to an extent of 39,453 cubic mts from the petitioners land, even though 2nd petitioner ad 2 others have entered into an agreement with respondent Nos.3 and 4. Thus, no fault can be found with petitioners nor it coulcl be said that on account of jnaction on the part ofpetitioners, the respondents could not undeftake de-casting of sand from petitioners, lands. [t is on account o1' typical bureaucratic approach adopted by the respondents, the period within which the respondent authorities in particular rr:spondent No.3 is required to undertake de_casting operation from pslilionsrs' Iand could not be taken up. For ttre said reason, petitioners cannot be made to suffer or cannot be directed to approach the respondent authorities once again by submitting a fresh application, for the entire process to commence afiesh from scratch by authorities causing inspection, having a meeting of DLSC, thereafter for grant permission.

11. Further, it is also to be noted that since the 2,d respondent is conferred with power to extend the validity of permi ssion 5 granted for de-casting, the respondent authorities i.e. respondent Nos.3 and 4 having failed to act upon the proceedings dated \ I 29-06-2021 issued by the 2nd respondent, ought to have approached \ by themselves seeking extension of time rather ttran allowing the proceedings to lapse thereby making the petitioners suffer for the inaction of the respondents.

12. In view of the above, this Court hereby directs the 2nd respondent to look into the inaction on the part of respondent Nos.3 and 4 authorities and grant extension of time to the proceedings dated 29-06-2021 issued by him for de-casting of sand from petitioners' patta lands within a period of four (04) weeks from the date ofreceipt ofcopy ofthis order.

13. Upon the 2nd respondent issuing extension of validity of earlier proceeding permitting the respondent No.3 to de-cast, the 3'd respondent shall undertake de-casting of sand from petitioners' patta lands without further delay within the extended time as permitted by the 2nd respondent.

14. Subject to above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. )r I 6 I 5. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if arry, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. /TRUE COPY// SD/-K.AMMAJI ASSTSTANT REG|SThAR \n/ '')v I To, Telangana, Flyderabail. Collectorate, lvtuluguTelangana. SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary Dept of Mines and Geology Secretariat, The State of 2. District collector and chairperson District Level sand committee District 3. The Vice Chairmai and Minaging Director M/s Telang,ana State Mineral - - . pev.e[oppglt Corpo_ration Ltd., Khairtabad, Hyderabad Tetangana 4. Assistant Director of Mines.and Geology Muhigu, Mulullu Distfrct, Telangana 5. One CC to Sri Ramesh Babu Vishwanithula, -Aivocaii: 6. Two CCs to OP for Mines And Geology, High Court for the Stat6 of -SC[C,PUC] 7. One CC to Sri B, Ramutu, 8. Two CD Copies Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI tOpUCI TJ BSK ?f {.." HIGH COURT DATED:0410212025 ORDER WP.No.3428l5 of 2024 ( 5 3 J 1 Y\E STA rt 0 E t{[t, ?cl5 f)5gp1rC,vl r-\ ,'t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS td >\r(