IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT APPEAL No.282 of 2008 Date: 21.09.2010 Between: T.Muthu Swamy …..Appellant And: The Deputy Director of Mines & Geology Guntur and others …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT APPEAL No.282 of 2008 JUDGMENT:(PER HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM) The writ petitioner has filed this appeal aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 02.11.2006 in W.P.No.1744 of 2004 rendered in a common judgment dated 02.11.2006 in W.P.Nos.1744, 1777 and 2503 of 2004. The appellant had filed W.P.No.1744 of 2004 for a declaration that the tender notification issued by the Guntur Zilla Parishad proposing grant of lease of quarry land in Sy.No.581 in an extent of Ac.23.60 cents of Perecherla village, Medikondur Mandal, Guntur District for a period of three years, is invalid as it would interfere with the quarry lease granted to the petitioner in an extent of Ac.1.80 cents in the same survey number (581), for a period of 10 years upto 15.12.2006. In its counter affidavit in the writ petition, the Zilla Parishad had contended that the petitioner obtained the quarry lease from the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology without obtaining a no objection certificate (N.O.C) from the Zilla Parishad which is the owner of the land and that the petitioner is unlawfully trying to work the quarry which is the property of the Zilla Parishad. In a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology and the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology (respondents 1 and 2), the deponent Assistant Director admits that a quarry lease of an extent of Ac.1.80 cents in Sy.No.581 was granted to the petitioner for a period of 10 years; that another quarry lease for an extent of Ac.0.35, cents also in Sy.No.581 of the village for a period of 10 years was granted in favour of M/s.Vengalayapalem Harijan Labour Contract Co-operative Society Limited vide proceedings dated 11.02.1997; that the answering respondent is not aware of the tender notices issued on 24.12.2003 and 13.01.2004 by the Zilla Parishad; that a letter from the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad in respect of an application of one N.V.Nageswara Rao was received, claiming that the land in Sy.No.581 belongs to the Zilla Parishad; that the Department had addressed a letter to the District Collector, Guntur on 02.01.2004 requesting clarification as to the classification of the land, whether it belongs to the Revenue Department or the Zilla Parishad; and that no reply from the District Collector is yet received. It would appear from the several averments that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Medikonduru Mandal had initially granted a no objection certificate for processing the quarry lease in favour of the petitioner/appellant on the assumption that the land in question belongs to the Revenue Department. The M.R.O has addressed another letter dated 11.06.2003 to the M.P.D.O, Medikonduru stating that as per the entries in the R.S.R, the land in Sy.No.581 of an extent of Ac.63.60 cents of Perecherla village was alienated in favour of the then District Board for quarrying purposes and subject to the condition that as per the Board’s Standing Order, the Board must utilise it for quarrying purposes (now the zilla Parishad). From the material on record, there appears to be a serious and regnant dispute on an essential fact viz., whether the land in Sy.No.581 of Perecherla village belongs to or is under the control of the Revenue Department of the State or belongs to the Zilla Parishad. If the land in question belongs to the Zilla Parishad, then the quarry lease granted in favour of the petitioner under orders of the competent authority of the Mines and Geology Department would be incompetent for having failed to obtain permission from the true owner of the lands i.e., the Zilla Parishad. Even if the lands belong to the Zilla Parishad, the Zilla Parishad may itself quarry the lands after obtaining due permission from the competent authorities under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (in short, “the Act, 1957”) or may grant lease of the land. Even if a lease were granted by the Zilla Parishad, for operating a quarry for extracting minerals therefrom, the due process under the Act, 1957 will have to be followed. Depending upon whether what is sought to be extracted is a major or a minor mineral, the appropriate provisions of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 or the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 would be applicable. From the competing pleadings of the petitioner; the respondents 1 and 2 and the 3rd respondent Zilla Parishad, it would appear that the parties are at cross purposes without a clarity on the ownership and control of the property or the applicable provisions of the law. The petitioner claims to be a poor person who has been taken for a ride by the Mines and Geology Department and now the Zilla Parishad. The Zilla Parishad claims that it has absolute rights including for grant of quarry leases, on the plea that it is the owner of the land; and the Mines and Geology Department assumes that since the Mandal Revenue Officer had given an N.O.C the land must belong to the Revenue Department and the lease granted by it in favour of the petitioner is valid. The matter is stated to have been referred to the District Collector in 2004 but there is no information as to what happened thereafter and as to whether the dispute as to the title, custody or authority over the land has been settled. Normally in a situation of factual incoherence like the present, we would have directed the Government to resolve the dispute as to the title and authority over the property had the State been impleaded. The appellant/writ petitioner has however not chosen to implead the State of Andhra Pradesh as a respondent and is rest content have impleaded only the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology; the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology and the Guntur Zilla Parishad represented by Chief Executive Officer. Needless to state that if the petitioner has a complaint with respect to any deficiency of service by the Directorate of Mines and Geology, such deficiency would be qua the grant of a quarry lease in respect of an area authorised to the State under the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, 1957 read with provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1966 and the State would be a necessary and property party. The State is thus required to be impleaded as party in view of the provisions of Article 300 of the Constitution of India. Guidance in this area is also available qua Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant/petitioner is disentitled to any grant of substantive relief on account of the failure to implead the State which is a necessary and proper party. In the circumstances, we consider it appropriate to dismiss the writ appeal and set aside the order dated 02.11.2006 in so far as W.P. No.1744 of 2004 is concerned and dismiss the said writ petition as well for failure to implead the proper and necessary party, the State of Andhra Pradesh. The appellant/petitioner is however at liberty to file a fresh writ petition, if so advised, after taking care to implead proper and necessary parties having regard to the context and structure of the reliefs sought therein. There shall however be no order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J September 21, 2010 KSH