G.Ganesh Kumar vs State Of Telangana

Heard Mr. Steven Jaideep, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. T.V.Ramana Rao, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.1 to 3; Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswara Rao, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.4; and Ms. N.Shoba, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

This intra-court appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.24275 of 2021 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.

The related writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking a direction to respondent No.3 not to grant mining lease to respondent No.5 in respect of land measuring Ac.1.17 guntas in survey No.18/A, Karankote Village, Tandur Mandal, Vikarabad District (subject property) and further sought for a direction to respondent No.4 to pass necessary order on the representation of the appellant dated 20.09.2021 by re-examining the application of respondent No.5 for grant of mining lease in the subject property. Be it stated that, mining lease in question pertains to limestone slabs which is a minor mineral under the Telangana State Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.

Basic contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that such lease could not be granted in favour of respondent No.5 as the appellant is the owner of the subject property. Enquiry by the Mandal Revenue Officer is still pending. Therefore, without report from the enquiry officer, it would not be proper to grant mining lease to respondent No.5 in respect of subject property.

The writ petition was contested by the respondents by filing counter affidavits. It was pointed out that the Tahsildar had submitted report and as per the report, the subject property was classified as patta land in the name of respondent No.5 and that it was free from encroachment.

Learned Single Judge perused the materials on record and thereafter passed the following order:

“6. Perused the record. The record would disclose that the 5th respondent made an application for grant of quarry lease on 26.10.2017 and the petitioner made an application for grant of quarry lease on 07.04.2021 i.e. four years later. Both the parties are claiming the land to an extent of Acs.1.10 gts., in Sy.No.18/A of Karankote Village, Tandur Mandal, Vikarabad Mandal as belonging to them. The Tahsildar, Tandur Mandal, furnished a report earlier on 04.07.2018 stating that the land in Sy.No.18/A admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.10 gts., situated at Karankote village was classified as patta in the name of the 5th respondent Sri M.A.Aziz S/o.Lal Mohammed and it was not fit for cultivation and issued NOC along with sketch. No report was issued by the Tahsildar on the application of the petitioner forwarded to him by the Mines Department on the representation of the petitioner claiming that the land belonged to him and that the 5th respondent claimed the same by showing wrong boundaries. The respondents Nos.1 to 3 requested the Tahsildar, Tandur Mandal, to conduct a thorough enquiry on the ownership of the land vide letter dated 29.09.2021. As per the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology they had not received any report from the Tahsildar till date. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that no mining licence could be granted to the petitioner till the report was received from the Tahsildar.

But, considering that the Tahsildar was not a proper person to decide the title dispute and if there was any title dispute over the land, the petitioner ought to have approached the Civil court and as the 5th respondent had also obtained necessary permissions for the mining lease, this Court does not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner to direct the 3rd respondent not to grant quarry lease to the 5th respondent.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed as it is found to be devoid of any merit. The petitioner ought to have approached the Civil court to claim his title and ownership over the land, if there is any dispute. No order as to costs.”

From the above, we find that both appellant and respondent No.5 were claiming the subject property as their property, though as per the Tahsilar’s report dated 04.07.2018, the land belongs to respondent No.5. As it was not fit for cultivation, no objection certificate was issued for mining. No report was issued by the Tahsildar on the application of the appellant. On the contention of the appellant, learned Single Judge noted that Tahsildar is not the proper person to decide title dispute and if, indeed, there is a title dispute, the proper course of action is to approach the civil Court and obtain appropriate order. As respondent No.5 had obtained necessary permission for mining lease, learned Single Judge did not deem it fit to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

In the hearing today, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to G.O.Ms.No.26 of the Industries and Commerce (Mines-I) Department, Government of Telangana, dated 31.03.2022, as per which, Government of Telangana had decided to grant leases for minor minerals through auction and that all pending applications would stand cancelled. On a query by the Court as to whether this ground was taken before the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant submits that this document was placed by the official respondents only at the time of hearing.

We are of the considered opinion that on the basis of a new ground/document, we should not interfere with the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge.

As it is, learned Single Judge was justified in observing that if the appellant disputes the title of respondent No.5 and asserts his title over the subject property, the proper course of action for him would be to approach the civil Court and obtain necessary order. No case for interference is made out.

Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.