THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.10514 OF 2010 Dated 30th April, 2010 Between: S.Ram Reddy and another …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh and five others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri L.Harish Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: AGP for Mines and Geology The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 5 to initiate necessary legal steps against respondent No.6 to restrain it from carrying on illegal mining of fullers earth and its transportation from land bearing Survey No.110/32 admeasuring Acs.5.00 and Survey No.110/63 admeasuring Ac.1.00 of Tekulapally Village, Mominpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. I have heard Sri L.Harish, learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record. Petitioner No.1 pleaded that one Hemla is the pattadar of the land admeasuring Acs.5.00 in Survey No.110/32 of the abovementioned Village and she executed general power of attorney and also a lease deed in favour of petitioner No.1 for quarrying fullers earth. Petitioner No.1 has applied for grant of quarry lease, which is stated to be pending with respondent No.4. Petitioner No.1 further pleaded that petitioner No.2 is his daughter-in-law, who was granted quarry lease for fullers earth over the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 in Survey No.110/63 on 01.01.1999 for a period of ten years and that as the said lease period has expired, the application for renewal of lease is pending. The grievance of petitioner No.1 is that respondent No.6, who is a lessee for quarrying fullers earth in the neighbouring land situated in Survey No.110 with different sub-divisions, has encroached into the land in occupation of petitioner No.1 in Survey No.110/32 and also into the land belonging to petitioner No.2 in Survey No.110/63 and started mining over the said lands and that though representations were made to respondents 2 to 5, they have not been taking any action against respondent No.6. In my opinion, it is neither feasible nor desirable that respondents 2 to 5 should be asked to adjudicate whether respondent No.6 has encroached into the lands of the petitioners. The dispute raised by the petitioners is purely civil in nature involving adjudication of issues of fact by a competent civil Court on appreciation of evidence to be let in by the parties. Therefore, petitioners ought to have filed a civil suit before the competent Court of law for appropriate relief. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the abovementioned remedy. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.13478 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 30th April, 2010 vrn