Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 1824
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ, Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
ADURU BADARINATH – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WA 100/2025
Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr. C Subodh, Govt. Pleader for Revenue, Govt. Pleader for Mines And Geology, Mr.T Sreedhar
Judicial orders prohibiting execution of lease deeds must be adhered to until the underlying disputes are resolved, emphasizing the binding nature of judicial precedents.
Headnote:(A) Estates Abolition Act, 1956 - Writ Appeal against orders granting mining licenses - The appellant challenged the legality of mining licenses issued to private respondents, citing previous court orders prohibiting such actions pending dispute resolution. (Paras 1, 9, 10)
(B) Judicial Precedent - The court emphasized that prior orders from both a single judge and a division bench were binding, prohibiting execution of lease deeds until the underlying dispute was resolved. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a family member of estate holders, contested the issuance of mining licenses despite ongoing litigation regarding land rights. (Paras 1, 9)
Findings of Court:
The court found the learned single judge's dismissal of the writ petition unsustainable, reiterating that the execution of lease deeds was prohibited until the dispute was resolved. (Paras 9, 10)
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the mining licenses granted and adherence to previous court orders regarding the land in question. (Paras 9, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the execution of lease deeds was invalid as it contravened binding judicial orders, emphasizing the necessity of resolving the underlying dispute first. (Paras 10, 11)
Result: The judgment and order impugned were set aside, declaring the execution of lease deeds as non est in the eyes of law.
PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ :
The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 24.01.2025, passed in W.P.Nos.18094 & 14375 of 2023, challenging the orders, dated 20.03.2023 & 06.04.2023, issued by the Director of Mines and Geology in granting mining licenses in favour of respondent Nos.5 & 6 as being bad in law and contrary to the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.16433 of 2022, dated 20.09.2022, and Writ Appeal No.755 of 2022, dated 13.10.2022.
2. The petitioner/appellant herein – Aduru Badarinath claims to be one of the family members of Aduru Estate holders, which was abolished under the Estates Abolition Act, 1956. A suit was filed by some of the members of the family for partition of the estate land. A preliminary decree was passed on 19.12.1951. Some of the family members had filed claims before the Joint Collector/Settlement Officer, Nellore, against whose orders an appeal was preferred before the Estate Abolition Appellate Tribunal, which remanded the matter by virtue of its order, 13.12.1971.
3. The Joint Collector then passed order, dated 07.02.2009, rejecting the claim of the petitioner over certain bits of land on the ground that they were mining poramboke lands on which the petitioner would not have any right. This order was challenged by way of C.M.A. Nos.27 & 29 of 2009 on the file of Estate Abolition Appellate Tribunal, which remanded the matter to the Settlement Officer, by virtue of its order, dated 28.04.2012. The Settlement Officer yet again passed fresh orders on 02.09.2016 essentially reiterating the order, dated 07.02.2009. Aggrieved by the same, C.M.A. No.11 of 2016 came to be filed before the Principal District Judge, Nellore. During the pendency of C.M.A. No.11 of 2016, steps were taken by respondent No.5 and others for obtaining mining leases over the land, which was declared as mining poramboke.
4. W.P. No.5985 of 2021 was filed by one Avula Vijayamma questioning the action of the respondent authorities in proposing to issue mining leases in favour of Aduru Navanandulaiah, who is the managing partner of respondent No.5 – M/s Siddeswara Minerals Limited. The said petition came to be disposed of by virtue of order, dated 11.02.2022, directing the respondents not to grant any mining leases in respect of the said lands till the disposal of C.MA. No.11 of 2016. Disposal of C.M.A. No.11 of 2016 resulted in remanding the matter back to Settlement Officer.
5. While the matter was pending before the Settlement Officer, W.P. No.16433 of 2022 came to be filed with a view to prohibit the grant of mining leases in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein pending the disposal of the matter, which was before the Settlement Officer. W.P. No.16433 of 2022 was disposed of by virtue of order, dated 20.09.2022 in the following terms:
“11. In the circumstances, it must be held that in view of the earlier directions of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.5985 of 2021 dated 11.02.2022, which are binding on the petitioners as well as the respondents, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 not to take any further steps for execution of lease deed in favour of 5th respondent and the firm in which the 6th respondent is a Managing Partner, till the dispute relating to the said lease is disposed of finally.”
6. Writ Appeal bearing No.755 of 2022 was preferred against the said judgment and order filed by respondent Nos.5 & 6. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the order by holding as under:
“4. Admittedly, consequent upon remand of the matter, the issue as to whether the subject lands are mining poramboke or the members of family of the estate holders are entitled for grant of ryotwari patta in respect of the said lands, is presently pending consideration before the Settlement Officer. This being the position and in the backdrop of the factual matrix of the matter, as discussed above, we are of the consi
