IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.11668 OF 2007 T.Narayana Reddy ... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Kurnool and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.11668 OF 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed alleging the inaction of respondent No.2 - Mandal Revenue Officer, now designated as (Tahsildar), Bethamcherla Mandal, Kurnool District, in not issuing the ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Ac.2-36 cents in Survey No.1136/1 of Bethamcherla Village and Mandal, Kurnool District, for eventual grant of lease hold rights for Limestone slab quarry, as illegal and seeking a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC). 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner made an application, dated 09.11.2006, for grant of lease hold rights to conduct quarry operations for extraction of limestone slabs in the land situated in Survey No.1136/1 of Bethamcherla Mandal, Kurnool District. Since the said land is Government land, unless respondent No.2 grants no objection, his application for lease hold rights would not be considered. Therefore, an application dated 09.11.2006, was made to respondent No.2 for issuance of NOC. It is the grievance of the petitioner that although considerable time has lapsed, respondent No.2 has not considered his request and accorded his approval. 3. Respondent No.2 – Tahsildar, filed counter-affidavit admitting that the petitioner submitted an application, dated 09.11.2006 to the Assistant Director, Mines & Geology Department, Kurnool, and the same was received by the said Department on 27.11.2006. It is stated that an extent of Ac.1.81 cents in Survey No.1136/1, in which the petitioner is seeking lease hold rights, has already been assigned to one Gutupalli Syed Pakir Saheb and the said land has been purchased by respondent No.4 under a registered document No.641, dated 03.04.1985. As the assigned land is not alienable, action is pending against respondent No.4 under the provisions of A.P.Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 ( for short “ the Act”). It is also stated that since the part of the land has already been assigned, it is factually not possible to issue NOC. 4. Respondent No.3 – Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Kurnool, Kurnool District, also filed counter-affidavit stating that as per the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bethamcherla, vide letter No.L.Dis.No.204/99, dated 22.05.1999, Survey No.1136/1 of Bethamcherla (Village & Mandal) is divided as Survey Nos. 1136/1 and 1136/2. Survey No.1136/1 is classified as assessed waste covering an extent of Ac.5.18 cents, which is a patta land of one Golla Venkateswaranna. It is further stated that basing on the earlier recommendations, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool, has granted quarry lease in favour of one T.Nagi Reddy, over an extent of Ac.4.63 cents, for a period of ten years in survey No.1136/1 and the lease deed was in force from 18.12.1999 to 17.2.2009 and that there is no vacant land of Ac.2.36 cents in Survey No.1136/1. As there is no vacant land available, the grant of quarry lease over an extent of Ac. 2.36 cents in Survey No.1136.1 does not arise. It is also stated that although no objection has been sought for, no such certificate has been received from respondent No.2 and only after ascertainment of classification and availability of the land the priority of the applications received for grant of quarry lease would considered as per A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, and the said consideration would be taken up soon after the receipt of NOC from the Tahsildar, after completion of survey and inspection. 5. Heard Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 6. Since the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is limited insofar as the inaction of respondent No.2-Mandal Revenue Officer, now designated as (Tahsildar) in not issuing NOC, no other controversy need be gone into by this Court in this writ petition. Whether any action is liable to be taken against respondent No.4 for purchasing the assigned land in violation of the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Land (POT) Act and whether there is any dispute in respect of the land in Survey No.1136/1, are not the subject matter of the writ petition and this Court, therefore, need not be go into these questions also. 7. Suffice to state that, admittedly, the application of the petitioner for issuance of NOC has been pending before respondent No.2 ever since 27.11.2006. Respondent No.2, being the public servant is under an obligation to consider the said application and pass appropriate orders thereon. Whether the petitioner is entitled for NOC or whether such NOC can be validly granted are all the issues that are within the purview of respondent No.2. But there is no justification for respondent No.2 to keep the application of the petitioner pending for such a long time. An authority discharging public functions, cannot sleep over the matter for an unreasonably long time. 8. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the application dated 09.11.2006 of the petitioner for grant of NOC which said to have been received by him on 27.11.2006 according to law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. 9. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2010. YVL