TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds ban on sand quarrying to protect environment, dismisses ownership claims, emphasizes groundwater protection</h1> The court upheld the District Collector's authority to ban sand quarrying and transportation to protect groundwater and the environment. Leaseholders' ... - Issues Involved:1. Power of the District Collector to ban quarrying and transportation of sand.2. Legality of interference with quarrying and transportation of sand by leaseholders.3. Legality of the authorities' inaction to prevent illegal quarrying and transportation of sand.4. Rights of landowners/pattadars regarding the removal and disposal of sand accumulated on their lands.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Power of the District Collector to ban quarrying and transportation of sand:The court examined the District Collector's authority to impose a ban on sand quarrying and transportation. The Collector had issued several orders and circulars, including a ban order dated 5-5-1999, citing adverse effects on groundwater levels and environmental damage due to indiscriminate sand lifting. The court acknowledged the Collector's power under the relevant government orders and guidelines, emphasizing the necessity of such bans to protect groundwater and the environment.2. Legality of interference with quarrying and transportation of sand by leaseholders:The first category of writ petitions was filed by leaseholders who had obtained permits from Gram Panchayats for sand quarrying. They challenged the interference by revenue authorities despite holding valid leases. The court noted that the leases were subject to conditions, including the construction of approach roads. However, the Collector's ban orders were issued to protect groundwater and the environment, and the court found that the interference was justified under these circumstances.3. Legality of the authorities' inaction to prevent illegal quarrying and transportation of sand:The second category of writ petitions was filed by agriculturists who alleged that illegal sand quarrying was depleting groundwater and affecting their livelihood. The court recognized the fundamental right to drinking water under Article 21 of the Constitution and emphasized the need for environmental protection. It directed the authorities to implement the ban orders strictly and take preventive measures to stop illegal quarrying.4. Rights of landowners/pattadars regarding the removal and disposal of sand accumulated on their lands:The third category of writ petitions involved landowners/pattadars seeking permission to remove and dispose of sand accumulated on their lands due to floods. The court clarified that pattadars do not own the minerals on their land, as all mineral rights vest in the state under the A.P. Estates Abolition Act, 1948. The court held that pattadars could not claim ownership of the sand or dispose of it without following the prescribed procedures and obtaining necessary permits.Judgment:The court dismissed the petitions filed by leaseholders and pattadars (WP Nos. 22740 and 25644 of 2000, 1270, 4255, 4398, 4407, 3617, 3277, 3303, 3581, 3526, 4628, and 4639 of 2001). It directed the respondents in WP Nos. 4640 and 5405 of 2001 to consider the exemption of ban orders on a rational basis, taking into account expert reports from the Ground Water Department. The court emphasized the importance of protecting groundwater and the environment, invoking the precautionary principle and the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
