HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WAMP NO.1831 of 2011 AND W.A.No.763 of 2011 Dated: 04-11-2011 Between: M/s.Shakthi Granites, Rep. by its Proprietor J.Ramoji, Thorrur Village and Mandal, Warangal District. …Appellant AND The Tahsildar, Gudur Mandal, Warangal District and 2 others. Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WAMP NO.1831 of 2011 AND W.A.No.763 of 2011 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is directed against the orders of learned Single Judge dated 20.9.2011 made in W.P.No.20076 of 2011 directing the District Collector, Warangal District to call for survey and demarcation of the land situated in Sy.No.179 of Ayodyapuram Village of Gudur Mandal to know whether the said land in which mining lease was granted for quarrying granite mineral in favour of the appellant is an assigned land as asserted in the impugned order dated 14.7.2011 passed by the Tahsildar, Gudur Mandal and any such mining operations therein is prohibited or not. It was further observed that the Tahsildar has only intended that the status quo existing to be maintained in view of the objections raised by the previous grantees over the very same land. Whereas WAMP No.1831 of 2011 is filed by third party to implead him in the writ appeal as respondent No.4. Admittedly, the writ appellant-writ petitioner was granted mining lease in the land in Sy.No.179 to an extent of 5.00 acres on the basis of ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued by the Tahsildar, Gudur. By the impugned order dated 14.7.2011, the Tahsildar called upon the appellant herein to stop digging of granite over the leased area which is being carried on the basis of ‘No Objection Certificate’ stating that it is a Government assigned land and with a direction to the Revenue Inspector to serve the copy of the said order to the appellant and return the acknowledgement. In the counter filed by the third respondent in the writ petition it is stated that the land of Ac.5.00 in respect of which, the Tahsildar issued ‘No Objection Certificate’ for grant of mining lease is assigned to several landless poor persons of the village, which is situated in the scheduled area. On the complaints made by the assignees, the Collector called for a report from the Tahsildar and on the basis of the report, the Collector directed him to cancel the ‘No Objection Certificate’ and accordingly, the said certificate was cancelled on the even date and also issued a notice to the appellant subsequent to the said cancellation on 5.8.2011 calling for explanation of the appellant as to why said ‘No Objection Certificate’ granted in favour of the appellant should not be cancelled. The said notice was admittedly, served on the appellant on 5.8.2011. Learned single Judge of this Court while issuing notice in the writ petition stayed the impugned order on 18.7.2011 and the same was extended for a period of six weeks by order dated 9.8.2011. Pending the present writ appeal, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 14.7.2011. We have heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Government Pleader and Sri S.V. Bhatt, who filed W.A.M.P.No.1831 of 2011 to implead the petitioner therein as proposed respondent No.4 in the writ appeal. At the outset, we may say that the issue sought to be resolved in the writ petition is limited that when the mining lease is in subsisting in favour of the appellant-writ petitioner obtained after getting ‘No Objection Certificate’, whether the Tahsildar can stop the mining operation without canceling the mining lease as per the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder. The implead petitioner in WAMP.No.1831 of 2011 is said to be the assignee of the land in question. The grievance of the implead petitioner that the mining lease itself cannot be granted in favour of the writ petitioner is not the subject-matter of enquiry in the writ petition. He is entitled to ventilate his grievance and question the grant of mining lease by way of a separate writ petition or by the other proceedings available to him under law. The WAMP is liable to be dismissed. In view of the above, it is not necessary for us to delve deep into the aspect whether the appellant-writ petitioner can be granted mining lease or not, which has not been challenged nor is the subject-matter of the writ petition. Having regard to the above, the interim stay granted by this Court staying the operation of the impugned order dated 14.7.2011 shall be continued until further orders are passed in the writ petition after receipt of the survey report as directed on 20.9.2011. The writ appeal and WAMP.No.1831 of 2011 are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) _______________ (R. KANTHA RAO, J.) NOVEMBER 04, 2011 TSR