BELLAMKONDA SHANTHI Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner purchased an extent of Ac 19.05 cents in Sy.No.101, 102 and 511/2 of Chowdavaram village under two registered sale deeds dtd. 16/4/1998 and 5/11/1999. Later she sold an extent of Ac 12.79 cents in S.No.101 and 102 of Chowdavaram village in favour of the 2nd petitioner by way of a registered document dtd. 6/3/2006 and the 2nd petitioner constructed godowns in part of the property and in the rest of land, belongs to both the petitioners, dry crops are being cultivated. It is further stated that Deputy Director, Mines and Geology, Guntur granted quarry lease for excavation of gravel of an extent of Ac 13.38 cents in S.No.511/1, 3 and 4 and S.No.100/1 of Chowdavarm in favour of M/s IJM (India) Infrastructure Ltd.-the 6th respondent. After obtaining the lease, the 6th respondent started quarrying operations without fixing the boundaries which is mandatory under the APMMC Rules. It is further stated that the petitioners' patta land is situated towards Eastern and Southern side of the land leased out to the 6th respondent. Further, the 6th respondent while excavating the gravel, excavated the buffer area and partly encroached into petitioners land at some places. Hence, the petitioners made representations dtd. 10/12/2011 to the respondents No.1, 3 and 4. In pursuance of the said representations, the 4th respondent sent notice to the 6th respondent. Thereafter, the Project Team Leader submitted explanation dtd. 11/3/2012. After considering the explanation, the 4th respondent by demand notice dtd. 20/3/2012, directed the 6th respondent to pay penalty and normal seinorage fee. Aggrieved by the same, the 6th respondent filed a Revision invoking Rule 35-A of APMMC Rules 1966 before the Honorable Minister for Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent "" the Joint Secretary to Government vide order dtd. 19/10/2012 allowed the revision by modifying the order. It is further stated that, since the 6th respondent excavated gravel without leaving buffer area and partly encroached into petitioner's land at some places, the 1st petitioner made a representation dtd. 12/7/2013 requesting to pass a revised order incorporating the undertaking given by the 6th respondent to reclamate the buffer margin area which will at least partly alleviate the petitioner's suffering on account of cracks in the soil and loss of topsoil. In pursuance of the same, the 2nd respondent sent a Memo dtd. 25/7/2013 to the 3rd respondent to examine the representation and furnish a report to the Government immediately for taking necessary action. But the authorities have not taken any action.

(3.) The Counter affidavit has not been filed by any of the respondents.