IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27964 of 2009 Between: A. Chitti Babu … Petitioner And Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary to Govt., Industries and Commerce (Mines) Department, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.S. Murthy Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Mines and Geology Counsel for respondent No.5: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri P. Roy Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27964 of 2009 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside G.O.Ms.No.34, dated 02.02.2009, whereby respondent No.1 granted mining lease in favour of respondent No.6 in Sy.No.535/P of Gokula Brundavanam Village, Saidapuram Mandal, S.P.S. Nellore District. I have heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri M.P. Chandramouli for respondent No.6. The petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of Ac.27.43 cents of dry land comprised in Sy.Nos.535/1, 535/2A, 535/2B, 535/7, 535/3 and 535/4A of Gokula Brundavanam Village, Saidapuram Mandal, Nellore District. Respondent No.6 applied for grant of mining lease for Mica, Quartz, Feldspar and Vermiculite over an extent of Ac.142.00. During the course of processing of the said application, respondent No.2 issued Memo bearing No.2762/M.I(2)/2008, dated 18.04.2008, wherein he has referred to the objections filed by the petitioner stating that he is the owner of Ac.27.43 cents comprised in various survey numbers referred to above and that he is not willing to give consent to respondent No.6 for carrying on mining operations. In the light of the said objections, respondent No.2 recommended that in view of Rule 22(3)(h) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the consent of pattadar is required at the time of entering into the mining operations, that the mining operations are of underground nature and that lease can be granted in favour of respondent No.6, subject to his giving an undertaking that he would not disturb the surface area of the land belonging to the petitioner. Following the said recommendations, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.34, dated 02.02.2009 confining grant of lease only to the extent of Ac.12.05 cents in Sy.No.535 part for a period of 20 years. In this writ petition, the petitioner pleaded that the very fact that respondent No.6 has given an undertaking to obtain consent from the petitioner shows that the land over which mining lease has been granted in favour of respondent No.6 includes the land owned by him and, therefore, without his consent, respondent No.6 cannot be permitted to operate the mine. At the hearing, Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterated the said plea. Sri M.P. Chandramouli, learned counsel for respondent No.6, submitted that in the context of respondent No.6’s application made for larger extent of Ac.142.00 and in the light of the objections raised by the petitioner, respondent No.2 suggested to respondent No.6 to give an undertaking that he will not disturb the surface area of the land belonging to the petitioner and that since the leased area is confined only to Ac.12.05 cents, which belongs to respondent No.6, the petitioner cannot have any objection for operating the mine only to that extent. The learned counsel placed reliance on the survey report dated 22.06.2006 to buttress the plea of respondent No.6 that he is the owner of Ac.16.00 of land in Sy.No.535 out of which he was granted mining lease in respect of Ac.12.05 cents. In my considered opinion, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate upon the dispute raised by the petitioner as to whether the land belonging to him forms part of the land for which respondent No.6 has been granted mining lease. Admittedly, Sy.No.535 consists of more than Ac.142.00 of land. Respondent No.6 has been granted lease only in respect of Ac.12.05 cents. The survey report on which respondent No.6 placed reliance shows that he is the owner of Ac.16.00 in Sy.No.535. In the face of these facts, it is not possible for this Court to prevent respondent No.6 from operating the mine on the ipsi dicsi of the petitioner that the land for which mining lease has been granted to respondent No.6 belongs to him either in part or completely. The petitioner is required to get his land surveyed and demarcated through the competent authority and seek appropriate relief in a properly constituted proceedings thereafter, if it is found in the survey that his land is included in the land leased to respondent No.6. Until such time, respondent No.6 cannot be restrained from operating the mine in respect of which he has been granted lease. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of. The operation of mine by respondent No.6 in pursuance of the lease granted in his favour is, however, subject to the rights of the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to get the survey conducted and demarcation of the land in question and after demarcation, if it is found that the petitioner’s land is included in the land for which mining lease has been granted in favour of respondent No.6, he is permitted to workout his remedies in accordance with law. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.36408 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 13.04.2010 ES