A demand notice based on encroachment findings is unsustainable if subsequent re-surveys using scientific methodology (DGPS) reveal that the original surveys were flawed due to the use of non-scaled maps.

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the Demand Notice issued by Respondent No.3 on 24.12.2020 vide No.1853/Q2/C.G/2016 calling upon the petitioner to pay the penalty, double the market value and fine of Rs.5 lakhs as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14, 19 and 300-A of Constitution of India r/w provisions of the A.P. Mines Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and consequently set aside the same and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Demand Notice issued by Respondent No.3 on 24.12.2020 vide No.1853/Q2/L.G/2016 pending writ petition and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition by vacating the interim orders dated 20-03-2021 in IA. 1/2021 in W.P.No.6583/2021 and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to give necessary work order and permit periodically pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass

The Court made the following order:

ORDER:

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer:

“to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the Demand Notice issued by Respondent No.3 on 24.12.2020 vide No.1853/Q2/C.G/2016 calling upon the petitioner to pay the penalty, double the market value and fine of Rs.5 lakhs as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14, 19 and 300-A of Constitution of India r/w provisions of the A.P. Mines Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and consequently set aside the same and pass…..”

Heard Ms.Shaik Neha Hassan, advocate representing Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for the respondents and also perused the material placed by the respective parties in the lis.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, namely H.Imam Sab, was granted quarry lease for colour granite over an extent of 1.000 hectors in Sy.No.3 of Jadarhalli village, Madakasira Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, on 19.07.2006 for a period of 20 years vide proceedings No.18346/R4-1/2006, dated 19.07.2006 issued by the 2^nd respondent. Later the lease deed was executed by the petitioner before the concerned authority. Accordingly lease period is up to the year 2026. Thereafter, the petitioner was prevented from his quarry operations by the respondent authorities.

In that way initially on 17.02.2018 a show cause notice was issued by the 3^rd respondent, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation. Without considering the same, authorities passed demand notice 18.08.2018. The same was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.No.34503 of 2018 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. Later on, this Court set aside the demand notice dated 18.08.2018 vide its order dated 25.09.2018 in W.P.No.34503 of 2018 by leaving it open to the authorities to pass fresh orders.

The learned counsel further submits that again 3^rd respondent passed un-reasoned demand orders by rejecting the petitioner’s request. Hence, the petitioner filed another writ petition No.6293 of 2019 seeking re-survey of leased area. In the said W.P.No.6293 of 2019, this Court issued interim orders to consider the request of the petitioner for re-survey in accordance with law.

According to the learned counsel for the pe