RAVIPATI SUBBA RAO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR & MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners own different extent of land, in all about Acs.18.00 in Yerrabalem Village, Prakasam District. The land was acquired by the Government in the year 2006 as submergence area of Gundlakamma Reservoir. Compensation was paid and possession of land was taken. The petitioners submit that though possession of the land was taken, it was being put to use for raising crops, which mostly yield fodder, since the land was submerged in the reservoir. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Prakasam District issued proceedings dated 13.02.2012 granting mining leases to quarry Gravel in an extent of Acs.18.00 in favour of Sri S.Naga Suresh Babu, 6th respondent herein and in an extent of Acs.2.14 in favour of Sri P.Harish, 7th respondent in W.P.No.8063 of 2012. In addition to that, two more leases were granted in favour of Ch.Haribabu and G.Rama Krishna over an extent of Acs.14.00 each. All the leases were granted for a period of five years. The work orders were issued by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology on 22.02.2012. The petitioners challenge the grant of leases over the acquired land. They submit that the extraction of Gravel would result in digging of the land to very deep levels and that the same would result in not only the land being kept out of use, when it is not submerged, but also threat to life to the residents and livestock of the village, when it is filled with water. They contend that as long as the land is not submerged, they are entitled to use it, though they have parted with the ownership.

(2.) The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology filed counter affidavit. He narrated the sequence of events that took place ever since the applications were submitted for grant of mining leases. He contends that applications were forwarded to the Tahsildar of the Mandal, who in turn issued No Objection Certificate after verification of the matter. It is also stated that the Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department has issued No Objection certificate for grant of leases and accordingly leases were granted. Respondents 6 and 7 in W.P.No.8063 of 2012 and respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.Nos.8542 of 2012 filed counter affidavits. They submit that the petitioners do not have any right to challenge the grant of mining leases, once they lost ownership on payment of compensation. It is stated that the authorities of the Revenue, Mines and Geology and Irrigation Departments have examined the matter in detail and leases were granted strictly in accordance with law. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) The petitioners do not claim any rights of ownership over the land, which was acquired from them. Since the acquisition was for the purpose of an irrigation project, for all practical purposes, the land retains its character and features, till it is submerged. Further, it is not uncommon that whenever the land forming tank bed is not covered with water, the erstwhile owners or the persons belonging to weaker sections of the village use them for cultivation, in such a way that no substantial changes take place, affecting storage of water. Further, they do not derive any right on account of such cultivation. Viewed in this context, the petitioners cannot claim any independent rights. However, the petitioners, not only being the erstwhile owners of the land, but also being the residents of the neighbouring village, have every right to ensure that the land is not put to a purpose other than the one, for which it was acquired or that the residents and livestock of the village do not face any threat on account of any use to which the land is put.