IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT. THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.25815 of 1999, 3798 of 2000 and 23350 of 2001 WRIT PETITION Nos.25815 of 1999: Between: Shaik Masthan Saheb and three others. … Petitioners AND Conservator of Forests, Guntur Circle, Guntur District and four others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri C.C.S.Sastry. Counsel for the respondents: None appeared for the respondents. THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.25815 of 1999, 3798 of 2000 and 23350 of 2001 COMMON ORDER:- As common issues arise in these three Writ Petitions, they are taken up together for disposal. Having regard to the narrow compass in which the issues raised in these Writ Petitions lie, I do not feel it necessary to refer, in detail, to the various facts of the cases. It will suffice to state that the petitioners were granted mining leases in respect of different parcels of land in R.S.No.656/11- B8 of Polepalli village, Durgi Mandal, Guntur District. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the land, covered by the mining leases, was classified as un-assessed waste by the Revenue Authorities, respondents 4 and 5 started interfering with their mining activity on the ground that the said land forms part of a Reserved Forest. They have stated in their affidavits filed in support of the Writ Petitions that in view of the dispute regarding the status of the land, the Revenue and Forest authorities felt that a joint survey should be held to ascertain whether the land in question falls within the Reserved Forest or outside the Reserved Forest. Feeling aggrieved by the action of respondents 1, 4 and 5 in seeking to interfere with their mining activities, pending joint survey; they filed Writ Petition Nos.25815 of 1999 and 3798 of 2000 in this Court. While the said two Writ Petitions are pending, the Deputy Director of Mines, Guntur, determined their leases. Questioning the said orders, the petitioners filed Revision Petitions before the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the said Revisions were dismissed on 11-4-2001. The petitioners thereafter filed Review Applications on 30-5-2001 for reconsideration of the orders passed in the Revision Petitions. As the officials of the Forest Department were continuing their interference with the mining activities of the petitioners, they joined together and filed Writ Petition No.23350 of 2001. Heard Sri C.C.S.Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondents. From the facts noted above, the premise on which Writ Petition Nos.25815 of 1999 and 3798 of 2000 were filed was that the Forest and Revenue authorities have agreed for holding a joint survey, but pending such survey, the Forest Authorities are interfering with the mining operations of the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, sought for a Mandamus to declare the action of the Forest authorities in not permitting the petitioners from carrying on their quarrying operations till the completion of joint survey. In view of the events that have taken place after filing of this Writ Petition, viz., determination of the leases, this Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus sought for, which will have the effect of permitting the petitioners to carryon their mining operations without existence of valid mining leases in their favour. With regard to Writ Petition No.23350 of 2001, the grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.3 therein was not disposing of the Review Applications and representations dated 30-5-2001 and 8-9-2001 respectively; and despite the interim orders granted in Writ Petition Nos.25815 of 1999 and 3798 of 2000 the Forest authorities are interfering with their mining activities. As far as the first part of the relief claimed in this Writ Petition is concerned, this Court does not find any difficulty to grant the same. It is incumbent upon respondent No.3 to dispose of the Review Applications of the petitioners. He is, therefore, directed to dispose of the Review Applications of the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving them an opportunity of personal hearing. But, I do not feel inclined to grant the second part of the relief having regard to the view already expressed by me in this order while dealing with Writ Petition Nos.25815 of 1999 and 3798 of 2000. With the dimissal of those two Writ Petitions, the interim orders granted therein automatically cease to exist. Therefore, the Forest authorities cannot be restrained from interfering with the mining operations of the petitioners, so long as their mining leases are not restored. Sri C.C.S.Sastry, however, submitted that though the petitioners filed Writ Petition Nos.25815 of 1999 and 3798 of 2000 on the bona fide belief that the authorities would conduct joint survey, their belief was later belied by their refusal in holding joint survey. He submitted that an appropriate direction may be issued to them to hold joint survey in order to put a quietus to the litigation. I find that this request of the learned counsel for the petitioners is very reasonable. The only issue that requires determination is whether the areas in respect of which mining leases were granted in favour of the petitioners fall within the Reserved Forest or not. It is, therefore, appropriate for the respondents to hold a joint survey to determine such an issue. In the result, Writ Petition Nos.25815 of 1999 and 3798 of 2000 are dismissed and Writ Petition No.23350 of 2001 is disposed of subject to the directions contained supra. Respondents are directed to hold a joint survey and complete the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the petitioners shall be given notice and an opportunity of participating in such survey. Within a period of four weeks after completion of the said survey, the District Collector, Guntur district, shall pass an appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioners. ----------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dt.30-1-2008 MNR