Back
AP High Court Quashes Sand Mining Orders by District Collector, Invokes
The has set aside two orders issued by the District Collector, Vizianagaram, permitting highway concessionaires to excavate sand and gravel from village ponds, including the Kannamnaidu Water Pond, for the construction of NH-130CD. The court held that the orders violated the , the , and the .
Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam delivered the judgment on in W.P. No.12895 of 2022, filed by four cultivators from Kothapalem Village, Bondapalli Mandal — Boddusatyavathi, Gorle Venkataramana, Devupalli Naram Naidu and Varri Sanyasappadu.
One pond, two paper orders
The petitioners told the court that Kannamnaidu Water Pond is the lifeline of nearly 2,000 acres of agricultural land in and around Kothapalem. Their grievance arose when the District Collector, through proceedings dated and , asked the Assistant Director of Mines and the Executive Engineer (Irrigation) to “facilitate” concessionaires who wanted to lift soil, gravel and sand from nearby ponds identified by the land-acquisition competent authority for the highway project.
No application had been made by the concessionaires under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules. No quarry lease or permit had been obtained. No transit passes were sought. The petitioners placed on record photographs showing excavation activity in and around the water body, and argued that the District Collector had effectively usurped the jurisdiction of the Mines Department.
“No permits were issued” — the official reply
The State’s filed a counter-affidavit admitting the issuance of the first proceeding, but asserted that no applications were received from the concessionaires and no permits were granted by its office. It said permits could have been issued only on payment of and other statutory charges after due process.
Notably, the District Collector and the Irrigation Engineer did not file counter-affidavits. The court observed that the issuance of the two impugned proceedings was therefore not in dispute.
From Roman law to
The judgment rooted itself in the , tracing its origins from Roman law and English common law through to Indian constitutional jurisprudence. Relying on and , the court recalled:
“The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the sea-shore, running waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands.”
The judge also drew on and to hold that the right to life under includes the right to a clean environment, and that minerals are national wealth held for future generations. The nine-judge bench decision in was cited for the proposition that the State holds natural resources as a trustee.
In an unusual and reflective passage, the court observed that the duty to protect water is not a modern invention. It noted that Hindu scriptures venerate rivers; Christian teachings treat water as a symbol of life and purification; and Islamic teachings prohibit wastage and contamination of water. These traditions, the court said, closely align with the .
Why the collector’s orders could not survive
Applying these principles, the court found that sand and gravel are “ ” under , and prohibits quarrying without a lease or permit. The impugned proceedings were not preceded by any application, statutory scrutiny or environmental assessment. The court quoted:
“Neither the nor concessionaries have preferred any prescribed application.”
It also rejected the argument that speedy highway construction justified bypassing the law. The court noted that concessionaires are commercial contractors, not charities, and must obtain material through the statutory route.
“The impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd Respondent are emanated without there being any proper application, along with all the procedural pre-requisites, as envisaged in Mining Laws in vogue.”
Consequently, the proceedings were declared arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the doctrine of public trust.
A standard operating procedure for water bodies
During the proceedings, the court took judicial notice of repeated cases of illegal excavation from water bodies and directed the State to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure. The submitted an SOP dated covering identification, reporting, removal of encroachments, drone surveillance, , penalties and restoration of water bodies.
Disposing of the writ petition, the court:
- set aside the impugned proceedings dated and ;
- directed the State and its instrumentalities to strictly adhere to the SOP in its “true letter and spirit”;
- directed the Chief Secretary to conduct a review meeting at least once every year to assess implementation.
The court also observed that the doctrine of public trust may not yield instantaneous relief, but following it faithfully is a gift to future generations:
“The fruits of the Doctrine of Public Trust will not yield instantaneous reliefs, but following it in its true letter and spirit would be beneficial to the future generations, who are none other than our own progeny.”
The judgment underscores that national infrastructure projects cannot become a shortcut for exploiting public water bodies. By making the SOP binding and requiring annual review, the High Court has given the State a durable framework to protect its ponds, tanks and rivers from unauthorized excavation.
