THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22128 of 2002 Date: 30.01.2008 Between: P. Karamchand … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.22128 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.4 to 7 in interfering with the mining operations of the petitioner in respect of the land comprised in Sy.Nos.19, 19/1 of Athkur Village, Ranga Reddy District covered by lease deed dated 14.12.1998 entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. A perusal of the record shows that by proceedings dated 10.12.1998 the petitioner was granted lease for quarry of stone and metal over an extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.19 of Athkur Village, Peddamul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and since then he was being given dispatch permits for excavating and carrying minor minerals by the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology on payment of necessary amounts in respect of the mineral excavated in the said land and also in Ac.1.00 of land in Sy.No.19/1 for which quarry lease was granted in favour of one Md. Ghouse. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.5 to 7 have been intercepting transportation of the mineral excavated from the said land covered by the mining lease deed. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.5 it is averred that the land located in Sy.No.19 of Athkur Village was declared and notified as reserve forest land under Section 29 of the Hyderabad Forest Act, 1355 F (for short, ‘the Act’) and a notification was published in Official Gazette No.22 on 31.05.1951; that subsequently notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 09.02.1958, wherein a total area of Ac.634.01 gunta was included. Respondent No.5 questioned the authority of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in granting the lease in respect of the land situated in Sy.No.19 and also permit to transport the mineral excavated. If the land in respect of which mining lease is granted is included in the reserve forest, such a lease is per se illegal. The petitioner cannot therefore claim any legitimate right to carry the mineral unlawfully excavated. I am therefore of the view that it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to examine whether the land in respect of which lease was allegedly granted to the petitioner and Md. Ghouse was included in the reserve forest or not. If it is found that the areas are included in the reserve forest, they shall initiate appropriate proceedings to cancel the lease after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner and the said Md. Ghouse. If, however, it is found that the leased lands are not included in the reserve forest, respondent Nos.4 to 7 shall not interfere with the mining activities and transportation of mineral by the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.27742 of 2002 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 30.01.2008 ES