SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(AP) 39

A.SEETHARAM REDDY, K.A.SWAMI, V.BHASKARA RAO
G. RAGHAVA DAS – Appellant
Versus
Government Of A. P. – Respondent


( 1 ) THESE three writ Petitions involve a common question of law as to the interpretation of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Act 69 of 1980 ).

( 2 ) THE brief facts are as follows:

( 3 ) THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6357 of 1983 was granted a mining lease for one year on 23-5-1980 over an extent of 9 acres 30 cents in tadepalli, Mangalagiri Taluk for murram and road metal. He made an application for renewal on 11-2-1981 within the specified time. The application was rejected by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology by order dated 3-4-1981 on the ground that the applied area is situate in a reserve forest and as per Ordinance No. 17 of 1980 (later replaced by Act 69 of 1980) "reserved areas should not be put for a non-forest use". The petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the State Government under Rule 35 of the andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The State Government by its order dated 30-4-1983 dismissed the appeal. It is the validity of these two orders that is challenged in Writ Petition.

( 4 ) THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6788 of 1983 and 7234 of 1985 was granted a mining lease for quarrying lime stone over an extent of















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top