P.R.SUBRAMANYAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No. 3 in not executing quarry lease deed in favour of the petitioner over one hectare of land in survey No. 542 of Yalakailu Village, V. Kota Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri M. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 has granted quarry lease for colour granite in favour of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Granites (hereafter referred to as transferor) over an extent of one hectare of land in survey No. 542 of Yalakailu Village, vide proceedings No. 6668/R. 5-1/2007 dated 23.07.2008 for a period of 20 years. The petitioner entered into an understanding with the transferor for transfer of lease in his favour. Respondent No. 2 has accordingly issued proceedings dated 17.06.2013 granting permission for such transfer. Respondent No. 3 has issued consequential proceedings on 26.06.2013 permitting the petitioner to pay advance dead rent of Rs. 44,000/-, security deposit of Rs. 44,000/-, Rs. 2,000/- towards advance land assessment and Rs. 1,000/- towards cess on land assessment along with deficit stamp duty and other relevant documents. During the interregnum, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Vigilance, raised a demand for Rs. 24,74,840/- with ten times penalty of Rs. 2,47,48,400/- against the transferor in respect of another mining lease, vide his order dated 11.06.2013. When the petitioner approached respondent No. 3 with a request to complete the process of transfer, respondent No. 3 has declined the petitioner's request. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition.

(3.) Though no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, on instructions, submitted that the only reason for not transferring the mining lease in favour of the petitioner is that the transferor is in arrears of the mineral revenue under another lease and that therefore, unless it pays all the mineral revenue due under that lease, it is not entitled to transfer the subject lease to the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the second proviso to Rule 12(5)(h)(viii) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules').