Environmental protection and groundwater conservation justify sand quarrying restrictions; pattadars have no automatic right over deposited sand.

Environmental protection and groundwater conservation were treated as valid grounds to restrict sand quarrying and transportation, with the right to drinking water linked to Article 21 and the precautionary principle applied alongside the Mines and Minerals Act and the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The District Collector's power to prohibit unregulated sand removal and to review exemptions on a rational basis was upheld. Separately, pattadars were held to have no automatic proprietary right to remove or dispose of sand accumulated on their lands, because sand is a minor mineral governed by the statutory leasing and permit regime; the claim to private disposal was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the District Collector could impose and enforce a ban on sand quarrying and transportation in view of depletion of groundwater and environmental harm. (ii) Whether pattadars or landholders have an automatic right to remove and dispose of sand accumulated on their lands.

Issue (i): Whether the District Collector could impose and enforce a ban on sand quarrying and transportation in view of depletion of groundwater and environmental harm.

Analysis: The right to drinking water was treated as part of the right to life. Quarrying of sand from river beds and streams was found capable of reducing percolation, lowering groundwater levels, and causing ecological damage. The legal framework under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 was read together with the constitutional mandate under Articles 21 and 48-A. The precautionary principle was applied, and the State was held under a constitutional obligation to prevent environmentally harmful and unregulated sand removal. The Collector's power to prohibit such activity and to rationally review exemptions was therefore upheld.

Conclusion: The ban on sand quarrying and transportation was held to be within authority and justified on environmental and groundwater-conservation grounds.

Issue (ii): Whether pattadars or landholders have an automatic right to remove and dispose of sand accumulated on their lands.

Analysis: On vesting under Section 3-B of the A.P. Estates Abolition Act, 1948, mines and minerals stood transferred to the State. Sand, being a minor mineral, did not become the private property of the pattadar merely because it was deposited on the surface of the land. The A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 required compliance with the statutory leasing and permit framework, and Rule 12(2-A) gave only a preference to small landholders rather than an absolute right. The Court also noted that in some matters the very fact of sand accumulation was disputed, which could not be conclusively resolved in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Pattadars were held not to have any automatic right to dispose of the sand and could act only in accordance with the statutory mineral regime.

Final Conclusion: The petitions challenging the prohibition on quarrying and the claimed private right over sand were rejected, while the petitions concerning exemption from the ban were left to rational reconsideration by the authorities on the basis of expert groundwater reports.

Ratio Decidendi: Environmental protection and groundwater conservation can justify restriction of sand quarrying, and a pattadar acquires no automatic proprietary right over sand as a minor mineral merely because it lies on the surface of his land.

---