Affidavit mines support case

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

W. P. NO. 7725 OF 1994.

BETWEEN :-

SAMATA, (Regd. No. 554/90), a rural Development

Society registered under the society registration Act,

1860 having its registered office at Peddamallapuram,

Sankharavam Mandal, rep, by its Executive Director, R. Ravi. …petitioner.

AND :-

State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by

Its principal secretary to Government,

Industries & Commerce Department,

Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & Others. … Respondents.

AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER :-

I, R. Ravi, son of Sri R. K. Rao, aged about 28 years, Social Worker, resident of Pulabanda, Paderu Mandal Visakhapatnam District, having temporarily come down to Hyderabad do here by solemnly and sincerely affirm and state as follows :-

1.  I am the executive director of the petitioner organisation and as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case. I am authorised to file this affidavit on behalf of the petitioner organisation and I am filing this Writ Petition in public interest in general and in the interest of tribals in particular.

2.  I did my B.COM (Hons) from Osmania University and also did Post-Graduate diploma in Rural Development from Madras Christian College, Madras. After completing my studies in 1986, I actively worked with Bhayavathula Charitable Trust, Yelamanchili and “Spandana” a society for developming awareness among people situated at Velangi, Sankharavam Mandal, East Godavari District till 1990. There after I started the petitioner society at the request of the local tribes of Peddamallapuram area. There are nearly 2000 members who are mostly tribes people. The society is run by an executive of 15 full time workers who are drawn from the local area. The main objects of the society are implementation of various welfare schemes of the government, creating awareness among tribes people on their rights and duties, organising of women’s self-help groups, farmer’s grain banks, protection of ecological balance, striving for a sustainable development, imparting environmental education etc. The society also imparts training for lower level functionaries of Girijan Cooperative Corporation and Integrated Tribal Development Agency. The society’s activities were funded by Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, I.T.D.A. G.C.C and other philanthrophic institutions and individuals.

3.  I submit that Anantagiri Mandal is in scheduled area of Visakhapatnam District. It is fully inhabited by tribals belonging to Konda Dora, Bhagata, Kutia, Nooka Dora, Valmiki & Khond tribes. It is one of the important Hilly regions of Eastern Ghats known for the diversity of its flora and fauna. It has rich deposits Calcite, Mica, Quartz and lime stone, being the oldest suite of rocks on earth (4000 million years). It is a catchment area for Gosthani and Sharada rivers. This mandal is rich in forest wealth. The tribals mainly live on cultivation and collection of minor forest produce like Adda leaves, Myrobalams, Tamarind, Amla, Jackfruit etc. Apart from this the tribals also survive on many tubers and other edible plants found in the forest.

4.  I submit that there is A. P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 which is in the force in Andhra area since 1959. It was amended in 1970 in view of the various illegal transfers that had taken place between tribals and non-tribals. Sec. 2(g) of the said regulation defines ‘Transfer’ which includes lease also and also a contract relating to such property. Section 3 which starts with a non-obstante clause, the transfer of land and declares that such transfer is null and void unless it was made in favour of a tribal or a society composed solely of tribes. Even though the ‘person’ was not defined in the regulation, an interpretation of the said word includes government also. In view of that interpretation only, the government has taken a decision on 27-10-989 and decided to revoke all the leases/licences granted in the scheduled areas to the non-tribals after 7-10-1969 and accordingly instructions were issued to the concerned District Collectors and asked for compliance report. But no action was taken and on the other hand, fresh leases were granted in favour of the non-tribals .I submit that the respondents 5 to 14 are non-tribals only and their leases were granted subsequent to 7-10-1969. I submit that a Division Bench of this Honourable court in a decision rendered in W.P.3734 of 1993 dated 27-8- 93 held that the word ‘person’ includes government also and the grant of leases in government land in favour of non-tribals in scheduled areas is violative of the A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1959. Subsequently the HON’BLE Minister for Mines also assured to cancel leases held by non-tribals in scheduled areas. But nothing has happened so far. I submit that earlier we filed W.P.9573 of 1993 for terminating the mining leases in Borra gram panchayat area of Anantagir Mandal and this HON’BLE Court was pleased to admit the same and granted exparte interim direction to stop the mining activity in that area in W.P.M.P.NO.12028 of 1993 dated 16-7-1993 and the same was made absolute on 23-9-1993. The appeal against that order also failed and the said writ petition is pending.

4(a). I submit that the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 came into force on 25-10-1980 with a view to checking further deforestation. Section 2 of the said Act which starts with non-obstant clause says that no state Government or the other authority shall make except with the prior approval of the Central Government any order directing the use of Forest land or any portion there of for non-forest purposes. The explanation to the said section makes it clear that the ‘non-forest purpose’ means breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for any purpose other than reforestation. Sub-section (3) of section 2 further says that any forest land or any portion thereof may not be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by the Government. It is further submitted that a Full Bench of this HON’BLE Court in a decision reported in AIR 1990 AP 257 has clearly stated that the continuance of mining operations after the advent of the Forest Conservation Act without obtaining the prior permission of the central Government is illegal. I further submit that the 6th respondent has obtained the mining lease by way of transfer in G.O.Ms.No.204. Industries & Commerce (Mines-III) Department dated 15-4-1980 for mining Rock Phosphate and Vermiculate over an extent of 671 acres in Emikola Seetharamapuram village, Anantagiri Mandal (erst-while Gajapathinagaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District). The 6th respondent has not obtained any permission from the Central Government under the Forest Conservation Act for continuing his mining operations in the Reserve Forest Area covered by the mining lease. Hence I submit that the mining activity by the 6th respondent in Reserve Forest area of the Emikola Seetharamapuram village and Narasimhapuram village is illegal and void and liable to be declared as such.

(Para 4(a) added as per orders in W.P.M.P.No.16697 of 1994 dated 12-9-1994)

5.  I submit that apart from the leases of the respondents 5 to 14 being illegal, the mining activity is depriving the tribals of their livelihood, thus affecting Article 21 of the constitution of India. I submitted that respondent No. 14 was a Ex-village Karnam and presently working as a village Administrative Officer of S-Kota, Visakhapatnam District. He obtained the leases for collecting Mica and Quartz and when he found heavy investment is needed for this activity he transferred the leases in favour of 13th respondent was already holding leases in this area. The respondent No.13 is forcibly evicting the tribals even though they are holding D-formpattas since the leased area is over-lapping in their land also. In that way in Nimmallapadu village itself nearly 15 families were evicted and valuable trees were cut. They were paid meagre compensation by the respondent No.13 and thumb impressions of the tribals were taken on blank papers. The tribals being illiterate were left without any livelihood and nobody to represent their grievance. Recently I visited that area and noticed the said plight of the tribals and sent a representation on 5-1-1994 to the sub-collector, Paderu who could not take any action in view of the leases granted by the Mines and Geology Department. I submit that the Tribal Welfare Department is spending cores of rupees for the development of the tribals and the Mines & Geology Department is granting leases which is directly effecting the livelihood of the tribals. I submit that this may be the case in other areas also, but I could not verify them as I did not visit the entire Anantagiri Mandal. I submit that the Scheduled areas by their very nature require special treatment and the needs of the tribals should be looked after. Due to this mining activity not only the life of the tribals is affected but also the fragile eco-system is endangered. It is further just and necessary that this HON’BLE Court may be pleased to stop the mining activity in Anantagiri Mandal.

6.  I submit that we have no other effective alternative remedy except to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this HON’BLE Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India . I submit that we have not filed any suit and no proceeding is pending for the relief prayed here in.

For all the aforesaid reasons it is therefore prayed that this HON’BLE Court may be pleased to issue any writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to terminate the mining leases in existence in Anantagiri Mandal of Vishakapatnam District in favour of respondents 5 to 14 by declaring the said leases as illegal and void and violative of the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959* (and also violative of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980) and pending disposal of the writ petition to direct the respondents to stop the mining operations in the Anantagiri Mandal of Visakhapatnam District and pass such other or further orders as this HON’BLE Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

*Prayer Amended as per orders in W.P.M.P.No.16697/94

Dt .12-9-1994.

Solemnly affirmed and signed Deponent.

Hi s name in my presence on this the

19th day of April,1994 at Hyderabad. Before me.

4th & last page.

ADVOCATE, Hyderabad.

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION.

(Under Article 226 of the constitution of India)

SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT

HYDERABAD

W. P. No. 7725 of 1994.

Between :-

SAMATA, ( Regd. No. 554/90), a rural development

Society, registered under the societies Registration Act,

1860 having its registered office at Peddamallapuram,

Sankhavaram Mandal, East Godavari district, represented

By its Executive Director R. Ravi. …Petitioner.

AND :-

1.  State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its secretary to Government, Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2.  The Director of mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K. Rao, Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

3.  The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam.

4.  The Assistant Director of Mines , Mines & Geology Department, Visakhapatnam.

5.  Ch. Chalapathi Rao , S/o. Venkanna, Gunturvari Street, Kothapeta, Visakhapatnam.

6.  Andhra Phosphates (P) Ltd. 45-58/17/5, Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam-24 rep, by its Managing Director.

7.  K. Appa Rao, S/o. Venkata Ratnam, D. No.28-6-1, Jagadamba Junction, Visakhapatnam.

8.  M. Venkatapathi Raju, S/o. Lakshmipathi Raju, Kapu Street, S. Kota , Visakhapatnam District.

9.  Visakha Mines and Minerals, Mandaparthi village, Anantagiri Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

10.  Associated Mica Exports, 16-1-30/2, Official Colony, Visakhapatnam, rep. by Dasari Jayachandra Prasad.

11.  N. Madan Mohan Reddy, S/o. Sundara Rami Reddy, 8-44-16, China Waltair, Visakhapatnam.

12.  M/s. Trowell Cement Ltd , 73/3RT. Sanjeevareddy Nagar, Hyderabad-38, rep, by its Managing Director, G. Jagdish.

13.  Indian Rayon Industries Ltd, Plot No. 20, Pandurangapuram, Beech Road, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Vice-President, Mr. Om P. Taparia.

14.  M. Lakshminarayana, S/o. Appanna, Relli village (P. O.) Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.

15.  State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its principal Secretary to Government, Energy, Forest, Environment, Science & Technology (Forest-III) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

16.  Union of India, rep. by its secretary to Government, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Paryavaran Bhavan, C. G. O. Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110 003.

17.  The District Forest Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

(Respondents 15 to 17 added as per orders in W. P. M. P. No. 16696 of 1994 dated 12-9-1994)

18.  Mosuri Somanna.

19.  Sappa Sukranna.

20.  Silpa Latchanna.

21.  Silpa Appanna.

22.  Silpa Somanna.

23.  Sompi Latchanna.

24.  Sompi Pandanna.

25.  Valasi Gangulu.

26.  Bodapu Pandanna.

27.  Silpa Ramanna.

28.  Valasi Karanna.

29.  Mosuri Gangulu.

30.  Silpa Bodunna.

31.  Nandula Bhimanna.

32.  Silpa Appanna.

33.  Silpa Pandanna.

(Respondents 18 to 33 are added as per orders in W. P. M. P. No.19793 of 1994 dated 12-9-1994)

…Respondents.

The address for the petitioner for the purpose of all notices, processes, etc, is that of their Counsel Mr. A. Ramalingeswara Rao, Advocate, 3-6-550/5, 2nd floor, 7th Street, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad-29.

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to terminate the mining leases in existence in Anantagiri Mandal of Visakhapatnam District in favour of respondents 5 to 14 by declaring the said leases as illegal and void and violative of the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 * (and also violative of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980) and pass such other order or orders as this HON’BLE Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

(* Prayer amended as per orders in W. P. M. P. No. 16697 of 1994 dated 12-9-1994)

Hyderabad,

Dt : 19-4-1994. COUNSEL OF PETITIONER.