HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.10678 of 2009 Date: November 04, 2009 Between: S. Yenkappa … Petitioner And 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Secretariat, Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad and 5 others. … Respondents * * * ORDER: This Court issued Rule Nisi on 29.5.2009 and in W.P.M.P.No.13669 of 2009 granted interim direction as prayed for. 2. Heard Sri G.V.L. Murthy, learned counsel representing writ petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology and Sri L. Harish, learned counsel representing respondents. 3. In the light of the respective stands taken by the parties, submissions at length had been made. The 6th respondent filed W.V.M.P.No.2575 of 2009 to vacate the interim order. 4. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings No.47208/RR/AH/2008, dated 16.5.2009, of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction directing the 6th respondent not to commence quarrying operations in the petition schedule property i.e., S.No.56/E of Ac.1-03 guntas situate at Ogipur village, Tandur Mandal, R.R. District and pass such other suitable orders. 5. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.1-03 guntas in Sy.No.56/E situate at Ogipur village, Tandur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the said land is an inam land and his father late Saiga (Sayappa) was in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the said land from the year 1954. To this effect, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tandur, R.R. District, had issued ORC vide File No.D/2624/1991, dated 27.12.1991, and after the death of his father, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land continuously and his father was died around six years back. 6. Further it is the case of the writ petitioner that from the year 1954 his father’s name was shown as pattadar in the pahanies. Since the name of the 6th respondent was shown in the pahanies in the year 1997-98, the petitioner filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer for appropriate action in this regard. It is also stated that the 6th respondent had no title or interest over the said land and the 6th respondent had got changed the name by manipulating the records. In this regard a representation was also made to the Tahsildar, Tandur Mandal, dated 12.11.2008, stating that 6th respondent does not possess any document to show his interest and title over the said property and his name was wrongly entered in the records and to remove his name and enter the name of the petitioner. But, no action is taken on his representation. Thereupon, the petitioner made a representation to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. 7. It is also stated that surprisingly the Tahsildar, Tandur Mandal, R.R. District had issued no objection certificate to the 6th respondent for carrying mining operations in the present disputed land. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District had passed orders vide his proceedings No.4070/Q/2008, dated 26.11.2008, granting quarrying operations in favour of the 6th respondent. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad, had stayed the orders of the M.R.O. Tandur in file No.A/2154/97 until further orders by its order dated 29.11.2008 and thereafter the M.R.O. Tandur issued letter requesting the authorities not to issue any further orders in respect of the land bearing S.No.56/C to an extent of Ac.1-03 guntas situate at Ogipur village, R.R. District pending finalization of the representations and appeal before the R.D.O. Vikarabad in his letter No.B/1299/08, dated 12.2.2009. 8. Further it is stated that the petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent for granting quarrying operations in favour of respondent No.6 which is under question in the said appeal mainly challenging on the grounds as hereunder. a) The order of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Tandur, R.R. District is not sustainable under law for the reasons that the lease is granted in favour of the 6th respondent does not have any title or right over the property. b) The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology ought to have considered the objections of the petitioner with regard to the title and possession over the property in question. c) The Assistant Director ought to have secured necessary information from the Mandal Revenue Officer in view of the objections raised by the petitioner and other grounds raised by him. d) The petitioner submits initially the R.D.O. has granted stay and subsequently that was vacated on he ground that the 6th respondent filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner and his son and the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District, in I.A.No.435 of 2008 in O.S.No.135 of 2008 by its order dated 17.12.2008 has granted injunction against the petitioner and his son with a direction not to interfere with the suit schedule property. e) The petitioner submits that the proceedings before the R.D.O. Vikarabad are pending and there is a stay against the 6th respondent with regard to the title over the property in question, and subsequently the M.R.O. requested the Authority not to proceed further in view of the stay granted by the R.D.O. Vikarabad for the suit schedule property. It is submitted that any orders passed by the authorities will defeat the rights of the petitioner in the appeal and no objection certificate granted by the M.R.O. earlier in favour of the 6th respondent do not survive in view of the subsequent proceedings. f) The petitioner submits that even if the 6th respondent claims any alleged right basing on a private sale deed alleged to have been executed on 03.4.1997 which is a private unregistered document, the 6th respondent could have agitate the same before the R.D.O. as the matter is pending there. Instead of doing so, the 6th respondent filed a suit against the petitioner and his father only. The important and necessary parties i.e., the Revenue Authorities and the Mining Authorities are not at all parties to the said suit and as such the injunction order cannot bind over the authorities from adjudicating the appeal. More so, it is settled law that under the Special Relief Act an order of injunction is a right in person and the same is not a right in rem. With due respect the orders passed by the civil court is only limited to the extent of grant of injunction against the private party. When the very right of the property is under adjudication before the Revenue Authority, it is always advisable that this authority being a quasi judicial authority and not being a party to the suit and does not tough open the very issue raised before the civil court and this authority is only adjudicating the decision and orders of the subordinate authorities always can proceed and decide the appeal on merits as independent authority and so far as the rights of the parties before the civil court are spare issue tried by the civil court. If the appeal is not proceeded with and the 6th respondent, under the guise of injunction orders of the civil court, is continuing the operations of quarrying, it will cause much hardship to the petitioner and it will lead the petitioner under multiplicity of litigation for no fault of the petitioner. In which event the petitioner will suffer serious loss and hardship. 9. Further it is stated that the remarks of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, on the appeal of the petitioner stating that the 6th respondent applied for grant of quarry lease for Limestone Slabs in S.No.56/E (patta land) of Ogipur village, Tandur Mandal, R.R. District, along with requisite documents to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Tandur, is illegal and arbitrary. The Tahsildar, Tandur, vide letter No.B/1120/2008, dated 01.10.2008 informed that as per the records the land bearing S.No.56/E over an extent of 1-000 hectares situate at Ogipur village, Tandur Mandal, R.R. District, stands patta in the name of respondent No.6 is illegal and arbitrary. The name of the 6th respondent is included in the revenue records as per the guise of the local political leaders. On the basis of the records, the Tahsildar issued such letter. Accordingly, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, granted quarry lease in favour of the 6th respondent vide his proceedings No.3721/Q(2)/2008, dated 18.11.2008 for a period of 10 years in S.No.56/E (patta land) of Ogipur village, Tandur Mandal, R.R. District, under Rule 13 (1) of A.P. Mines and Mines and Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The said order is illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 10. It is also stated that as per the orders of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Tandur, executed the quarry lease deed on 26.11.2008 and issued work orders according permission to the 6th respondent to commence quarry operations vide Proceedings No.4070/Q/2008, dated 26.11.2008, and the said lease will be in force up to 26.11.2018. As per the guise of the said orders, respondent No.6 is going to carry mining operations without any manner of right over the schedule property. Respondent No.1 also stated that the 6th respondent produced orders dated 17.12.2008 in I.A.No.435 of 2008 in O.S.No.135 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, wherein the present petitioner was also made as respondent. According to the said orders, the respondent (appellant therein) and also any other persons are restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the petition and the said matter is pending. The suit filed by the 6th respondent is for perpetual injunction, but not for quarrying operations. But, the second respondent erroneously dismissed the appeal of the petitioners. 11. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology it is stated that before receiving representation from the petitioner, the lease deed in favour of S. Ramappa for operating quarry lease already had been executed. It is stated that S. Ramappa, son of Chandrappa had filed an application for grant of quarry lease for Limestone Slabs in Sy.No.56/E (patta land) of Ogipur village, Tandur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, over an extent of 1.00 acre for a period of 10 years on 17.9.2008 while enclosing the requisite documents and also had enclosed the copies of pattadar passbook issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tandur Mandal, R.R. District and the pahani issued by the Village Revenue Officer, Tandur Mandal, R.R. District and after receipt of application, an acknowledgment had been issued to the applicant and also addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Tandur Mandnal, R.R. District and requested to submit No Objection Certificate and classification and availability of land in the applied area along with the sketch to take further action for granting quarry lease in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Tandur Mandal, R.R. District vide Lr.No.B/1120/08, dated 01.10.2008 had informed that the matter had been enquired and reported that on verification of records, the land bearing Sy.No.56/E extent Ac.1-00, situate at Ogipur village stands patta in the name of S. Ramappa, son of Chandrappa. The Tahsildar also had informed that the land was also inspected and found that the soil of land is Black Cotton soil and free from encroachments. 12. Further it is stated that the objection raised by the petitioner was received by the respondent after granting and executing the quarry lease in favour of S. Ramappa. It is also stated that the Tahsildar, Tandur, R.R. District addressed a letter to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, informing that no further action be taken in respect of earlier issued no objection letter to issue mining lease relating to the land bearing Sy.No.56/C or 56/E, 56 over an extent of Ac.1-03 cents situate at Ogipur village and the Mining Lease also issued by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, vide Proceedings No.372/Q-I(2)/2008, dated 18.11.2008. Further, the Tahsildar had requested that no further orders be issued in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.56/C, extent Ac.1-03 cents situate at Ogipur village till finalization of appeal case in the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad Division. 13. It is also stated that petitioner filed W.P.No.26181 of 2008 on the file of this Court and also filed appeal before the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, on 23.12.2008 against the grant orders of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, vide proceedings No.3721/Q-I(2)/2008, dated 18.11.2008. The Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, stayed the orders of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, and requested to submit remarks on the appeal filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, remarks had been submitted to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad. It is also stated that while disposing of the W.P.No.26181 of 2008, this Court directed the learned counsel representing the petitioner to address a letter on 28.4.2009 to the Registry stating that the writ petition had become infructuous and therefore to seek permission to withdraw the writ petition. Permission was accorded and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. 14. Further it is stated that the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, after hearing the counsel for appellant who has stated that they had mainly relied upon the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad, dated 29.11.2008, wherein the orders issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tandur, giving no objection certificate in favour of S. Ramappa had been stayed. The impleaded respondent produced orders dated 17.12.2008 in I.A.No.435 of 2008 in O.S.No.135 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, wherein the present appellant was also made as respondent. According to the orders issued in I.A.No.435 of 2008, the respondent (petitioner herein) and also any other persons are restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the petition. Therefore, as of now the matter is pending before the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, and unless it is decided, it cannot be said that respondent No.6 is not the owner of the said property covered by O.S.No.135 of 2008 relating to the quarry lease which had been granted. Further it is stated that the appeal filed before the Director of Mines and Geology also had been dismissed in the light of the orders made by the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, aforesaid. 15. In the counter-affidavit filed by R-6 along with W.V.M.P.No.2575 of 2009 it is stated that his grandfather Sirra Yenkappa cultivated the land in Sy.No.56, admeasuring Ac.1-03 guntas and he died leaving his two sons namely Sirra Sayappa and Sirra Chandrappa. The writ petitioner is the son of Sayappa and the name of his father is Sirra Chandrappa. The father of the writ petitioner and respondent orally divided the land in Sy.No.56 and Ac.0-21 guntas of land was allotted to Sayappa and Ac.0-22 guntas of land was allotted to Chandrappa. After the death of Sirra Sayappa, the writ petitioner sold his share of Ac.0-21 guntas in Sy.No.56 to respondent No.6 for a sale consideration of Rs.65,000/- and the said unregistered document reduced into writing on 03.4.1997. The writ petitioner and his wife affixed thumb impressions on the said unregistered document and the writ petitioner executed a receipt in proof of receipt of amount. Respondent No.6, who conducted open inquiry in the ‘Revenue Sadassu’, held in the village, passed orders vide File No.H/2154/97 and mutated the land admeasuring Ac.1-03 guntas in Sy.No.56/C in the name of 6th respondent and whereas the land admeasuring Ac.3- 20 guntas in Sy.No.30/B was mutated in the name of the writ petitioner. The Revenue Authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed to respondent No.6 and also to the writ petitioner, in pursuance of the orders passed by respondent No.6 vide File No.H/2154/97. 16. Further it is stated that he made an application for “quarry mining” and the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology (R-5) sanctioned lease in his favour on 26.11.2008 for a period of 10 years. For the purpose of quarry lease he converted the agricultural land into non-agricultural land which resulted in increase of the market value of the property and became an eyesore to the writ petitioner. 17. It is also stated that when the writ petitioner tried to interfere with his possession, he filed O.S.No.135 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, R.R. District, for perpetual injunction and an interim injunction was granted in his favour and the said suit is pending. Further specific stand had been taken that the writ petitioner cannot take a stand that the writ petitioner is the absolute owner of the land in question and the other allegations also had been denied. 18. No doubt, it is brought to the notice of this Court that apart from O.S.No.135 of 2008 referred to supra, the writ petitioner filed O.S.No.104 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur and in I.A.No.467 of 2009 an order of status quo had been obtained. 19. It appears that the said order of status quo had been obtained relating to alienation only. No doubt, certain records relating to the revenue entries also had been placed before this Court and certain submissions were made in relation to the stay granted to the Revenue Divisional Officer and further submissions also had been made in the light of the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. 20. Section 8 of the Act aforesaid deals with Bar of Suits and the same reads as hereunder: (1) No suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made or in relation to any entry made in any record of rights or to have any such entry omitted or amended. (2) If any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963) and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. 21. Certain submissions were made relating to sub-Section (2) of Section 8 of the Act aforesaid. It appears that the suit filed by the writ petitioner O.S.No.104 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, is for declaration and recovery of possession. There is no serious controversy that the 6th respondent already filed a suit O.S.No.135 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, and obtained interim injunction and the said order is in force. It may be true that on the strength of No Objection Certificate the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology executed a lease deed in favour of 6th respondent for operating quarry lease for Limestone Slabs in Sy.No.56/E (patta land) of Ogipur village, Tandur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District over an extent of Ac.1-00 for a period of 10 years with effect from 26.11.2008 to 25.11.2018 vide Proceedings No.4070/Q/2008, dated 26.11.2008, as per the grant orders issued by the deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad. 22. It is no doubt true that the petitioner and also respondent No.6 appear to have filed suits O.S.No.135 of 2008 and O.S.No.104 of 2009 respectively, but however, a positive interim injunction is in force in favour of 6th respondent. The fact that the writ petitioner was unsuccessful before the hierarchy of authorities of Mines and Geology, this aspect also is not in serious controversy. 23. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case if the 6th respondent is not permitted to operate the quarry operations in pursuance of the proceedings already issued and the lease deed executed, the 6th respondent will be put to heavy loss. But however, it is made clear that such operations to be carried out by the 6th respondent in the present writ petition would be subject to the further orders to be made by the competent civil court in O.S.No.135 of 2008 and O.S.No.104 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur respectively. This Court also does hope that the learned Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, may make an endeavour to dispose of these suits at the earliest point of time. In the light of the competing claims and till appropriate orders are made in this regard by the competent civil court, the 6th respondent be permitted to operate the quarry operations in pursuance of the lease deed already executed in favour of 6th respondent in this regard. 24. Accordingly, subject to the aforesaid directions the writ petition is dismissed giving liberty to the writ petitioner to agitate his rights further in the light of the orders which may be made by the competent court aforesaid at appropriate time. No order as to costs. ____________________ (P.S. NARAYANA, J) Date: November 04, 2009. BSB