Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
Bathina Narasimha Rao, Died Per Lrs. and Others - Petitioner
Vs.
The Govt. Of A P and Others - Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.31725 of 2014
Decided On : 10.01.2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition for Mandamus - Petitioners challenged the legality of NOC issued for quarry lease, claiming violation of natural justice and jurisdiction - The court found that petitioners had no title over the land in question and that the NOC was issued following proper guidelines. (Paras 1, 25, 26)
(B) Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice must be adhered to in administrative actions, but the court found no violation in the issuance of NOC as the petitioners lacked title. (Paras 1, 26)
(C) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that the authority acted within its jurisdiction in issuing the NOC based on the guidelines established by the government. (Paras 1, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, claiming rights over land in R.L. Puram, challenged the NOC issued to the 7th respondent for quarry lease, asserting overlapping claims and lack of title. (Paras 2, 25)
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioners had no valid claim over the land and the NOC was issued in accordance with the established guidelines. (Paras 25, 26)
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners had title over the land and if the NOC was issued in violation of natural justice. (Paras 1, 25)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners, having lost their suit, could not object to the 7th respondent's rights over the land, affirming that the NOC was validly issued. (Paras 25, 26)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER :
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India for the following relief:
“…..to issue Writ order direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings in Rc No E1/1693/2011 dt 25.09.2014 issued by the 3rd Respondent and the consequential memo No 11198/R22/2014 dt 13.10.2014 of the 2nd Respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside those impugned proceedings of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents and pass such other order/orders as this Honble Court deemed fit and proper circumstances of the present case….”
2. Brief facts of the case are that the R.L.Puram is a Sothriyam Inam Village. One, Telikepalli Tirupathaiah was the primo-genitor. He had two sons by name, Krishnaiah and Purushotham. Krishnaiah had two sons by name Ramakrishnaiah and Mallaiah, who was adopted by Purushotham, who had no issues. Thus, the family came to be known as Ramakrishnaiah branch and Mallaiah branch. Ramakrishnaiah had four sons and one of the sons is Gopala Krishnaiah whose son is Ramakrishnaiah is the husband of Smt. Arundhathamma. There was a partition initially in respect of the property possessed by the said family and thereafter certain land was taken over by the Government. But, feeling that they had lesser property than the other branch, Ramakrishnaiah branch has filed O.S.No.327 of 1923 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ongole (for short “the trial Court”) for equalization of the property. The said suit was partly decreed against which A.S.No.79 of 1927 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Bapatla was filed, which was allowed by a judgment dated 26.03.1929 directing Mallaiah branch to hand over Ac. 17.76 cents of land to Rama Krishnaiah Branch. It is mainly stated that the Sy.No.55/4B of R.L Puram consists of Ac 39.556 cents. In that, the petitioners have purchased Ac 15.00 cents of land under an agreement of sale dated 21.11.1991. The said agreement of sale deed executed by one Smt T.Arundhathamma W/o Late Rama Krishanaiah. It is stated that the suit in O.S.No.16/2000 was filed by Sri A. Venkata Ramaiah for declaration of Title over the subject land in Sy.No.55/4B of R.L.Puram against Sri S.N.Nityanandam and 21 others.Sri S.N.Nityanandam and another also filed a suit in O.S.No.17/2000 on the file 1st Additional District Judge, Ongole for claiming various reliefs. Thereafter, the petitioners herein have also filed O.S.No.15/2000 for declaration of Title in respect of Ac.15.00 cents of R.L.Puram village. Further, Sri Mandava Venkata Rao also filed a suit in O.S.No.21/2000 for injunction and all those clubbed together for joint trial by virtue of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CRP.No.2410/2005, dt.3.8.2005. The learned 1st Additional District Judge rendered a common judgment dismissing O.S.No.16 and 17 of 2000 and Batch. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.15/2000 the petitioners preferred A.S.No.698/2010 before this Hon'ble Court. and this Court has granted interim order vide A.S.M.P.No.1913 of 2010 in A.S.No.697/2010. One Aparna Rock Exports also filed A.S No.879 of 2010 against the judgment and decree passed in O.S No.16/2000. In the said Appeal Suit also, this Hon’ble Court has passed interim order vide ASMP No.2374/2010 in AS No.879/2010.
While the matter stood thus, a News item was published in Andhra Jyothi daily news paper to the extent that DLSC is going to grant NO in favour of the 7th respondent and another over subject land in Sy No.55/4B of R. L Puram village. The Tahsildar, submitted a report to the Collector Prakasam District. Accordingly, the District Collector, Prakasam District has issued NOC on 25.09.2014 over the subject land to an extent of Ac11.56 cents in Sy No.55/4B in favour of the 7th respondent.
It is stated that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 02.01.2013 framing guidelines for issuance of N.O
The court affirmed that the issuance of a No Objection Certificate for quarry lease was valid as the petitioners had no title over the disputed land, emphasizing adherence to established guidelines.
The court ruled that ownership disputes over land must be resolved in civil courts, not through administrative processes, emphasizing the illegality of the quarry lease granted without proper verific....
Purpose of NOC is to find out if the Government have any claim over the land over which the lease is sought for or if there are any dues to the Government in respect of the land over which the lease ....
The court ruled that claims over estate lands must be substantiated by evidence of continuous occupation before a specified date, and mining leases granted during disputes are valid.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing a reasonable opportunity for the parties to present their case.
writ petition is not maintainable as an alternative and efficacious relief is available to the petitioner under Rule 35/35-A of the APMMC Rules, 2016.
The District Task Force Committee lacks jurisdiction to cancel a quarrying license; only designated competent authorities may do so after due process.
It is a well settled principle that once a final order is passed, all earlier interim orders merge into final order, and interim orders cease to exist.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
