IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17692 of 2008 Between: K. Ananda S/o. K. Karraiah R/o. Vaddikandiga Village, N.R. Puram Post, S.R. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Mines and Geology, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 3 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Near New Bus Stand, Chittoor. 4 The Tahsildar, S.R. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. 5 G. Chiranjeevi Reddy S/o. G. Ranga Reddy R/o. Cherakampalli Village, Penumuru Mandal, Chittoor District. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.ALENUR SRINIVAS Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents 1 to 3 in initiating proceedings for cancellation of quarry lease, for violation of terms and conditions of lease deed dated 22-05-2007, held by respondent No.5 as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri A.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner claims to have obtained no objection in respect of 2 hectares of land, in respect of which survey number has not been indicated on the ground that the same was a gap area of N.R.Puram Village, S.R.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the guise of carrying quarry operations in respect of 2 hectares of land in Survey No.189 of Durga Rajapuram Village, S.R.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District, for which he was granted mining lease, respondent No.5 has encroached into the land in respect of which the petitioner obtained no objection. The petitioner averred that despite proposals dated 17-05-2006 sent by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Sreerangarajapuram to respondent No.3, for cancellation of lease deed standing in favour of respondent No.5, no action is taken. Having carefully considered the averments contained in the aﬃdavit and perused the record, I am of the view that the writ petition is wholly misconceived. The grievance of the petitioner, as noted above, is conﬁned to respondent No.5 seeking to encroach into the land beyond the land over which he was granted lease. Even according to the petitioner, so far no area has been leased in his favour. All that the petitioner contended is that in respect of 2 hectares, which does not bear any survey number, he was granted no objection certiﬁcate. As on today, he has no right to carry on mining operations even in respect of that area in the absence of any lease granted in his favour. At any rate, even assuming that he has interest over the said area of 2 hectares, he could only request the respondents to ensure that respondent No.5 does not encroach into the area over which he has interest and if respondents do not heed to his request, and prevent respondent No.5 from doing so, he can avail his remedies available under law to prevent respondent No.5 from encroaching into his land. In the guise of raising a plea that respondent No.5 is encroaching into the area over which he has interest, the petitioner cannot seek cancellation of the lease deed standing in favour of respondent No.5. At any rate, proceedings dated 10-05-2008, addressed by respondent No.4 to the District Collector, Chittoor District, clearly indicates that the quarry operations, being carried on by respondent No.5 over the area not covered by his lease deed, have already been stopped. If at all, the petitioner had any grievance, the same ceased to exist with the said proceedings issued by respondent No.4. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.22995 of 2008 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 14th August, 2008 vrn