M/S. M.C. Anki Reddy And Co. vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court held that the Tahsildar, Muddanur Mandal, was competent to seize illegal or unauthorizedly stocked sand heaps under Clause 16(f)(vi) of G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 04.09.2019, rejecting the petitioner's contention that the seizure was without jurisdiction. However, the Court found that the sand dump belonged to M/s. M.C. Anki Reddy & Company (the petitioner) and was procured for executing government road works, supported by valid bills. The Court concluded that the stocking of sand was not unauthorized or illegal and was within the contract period for executing government road works. Therefore, the seizure of the sand by the Tahsildar under the impugned proceedings was declared illegal and arbitrary. The Court set aside the seizure and directed the Tahsildar to release the sand to the petitioner within two months, to be utilized solely for the purpose of laying the BT road from Kosinepalli to Penikelapadu, provided the work was still pending. The issue of whether the sand was procured for government works was decided in favor of the petitioner, and the seizure was held to be illegal.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. M.C. Anki Reddy and Company, a GST-registered firm dealing in civil contract works, filed a writ petition challenging the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Muddanur Mandal, dated June 20, 2019, and September 18, 2019, which resulted in the seizure of a sand dump belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner had entered into agreements for road repair works and procured approximately 60 trips of sand, storing it near the old police station in Muddanur. The seizure occurred after a letter from the Sub-Inspector of Police and a report from the Village Revenue Inspector. The petitioner contended that the seizure was illegal, irregular, irrational, and without jurisdiction, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Tahsildar, in his counter-affidavit, stated that the sand dump was unclaimed when discovered and that the petitioner initially denied ownership. The Tahsildar asserted his authority to seize illegal sand stocks based on a government order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Tahsildar, Muddanur Mandal, had the jurisdiction to seize the sand dump under G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 04.09.2019, considering the petitioner's contention that the seizure was without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that the seizure was illegal and arbitrary, while the revenue contended that the Tahsildar was authorized under Clause 16(f)(vi) of the said G.O. to seize illegal sand stocks. 2. Whether the sand dump belonged to the petitioner and was procured for authorized government works, making its seizure illegal. The petitioner presented agreements and bills to substantiate that the sand was for government road works. The revenue argued that the petitioner initially denied ownership and that the sand was dumped by unauthorized persons for financial gain, and that the bills produced were not in the petitioner's name. The court also considered whether the sand was procured for government works and whether the contract work was still pending.