IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15282 of 2008 Between: V.M.S. Granites, rep by its Proprietor, M. Naveen Kumar S/o V. Muniraj Netaji Road, Kuppam, chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., Mines & Geology Department rep by its Prl. Secrtary, Secretariat, Hyderabad-22 2 The Director of Mines Geology, A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Kadapa. 4 The Asst. Director of Mines & Geology, Palamaner, Chittoor District. 5 Sri S. Sai Kumar s/o G. Subramanyam R/o D. No. 13-265, D.r.S. Building, New Court Street, Kuppam, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particulrly one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus, calling for records related to impugned proceedings vide proceedings No. 1348/Q/2007, dt 29-05-2008 of the 4th respondent and declare the action of the Respondents in allotting 0.607 Hectors in Sy. No. 98/3 of Kotamakanapalli(V), Gudipalli (M), Chittoor District to the 5th unoﬃcial Respondent herein between Sy. No. 100 and 101/1 which was allotted to the petitioner, as illegal, arbtirary and consequently set- a sid ethe same and pass such other order or orders as may deem ﬁt and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15282 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was granted mining lease to quarry black granite over an area of one hectare, in Survey No.101/1 of Kotamakanapalli Village, Gudipalli Mandal, Chittoor District, vide proceedings, dated 28.06.2006, for a period of 25 years. The 5th respondent was also granted lease over an area of 0.607 hectares in Survey No.98/3 of the Village, vide proceedings, dated 29.05.2008. However, while mentioning the boundaries, some uncertainty has prevailed. The western boundary of the land leased to the petitioner is shown as the one in Survey No.100. Curiously, in the proceedings issued in favour of the 5th respondent, though the land of the petitioner is shown as eastern boundary, the land in Survey No.100 is shown as western boundary. The petitioner complains that taking advantage of this uncertainty and lack of clarity, the 5 th respondent is encroaching into the land leased to it. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Industries and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. The petitioner as well as the 5th respondent were granted mining leases over diﬀerent extents of land at different points of time. The extent of land leased to the petitioner is one hectare in Survey No.101/1, whereas the one granted in favour of the 5th respondent is 0.607 hectares in Survey No.98/3. The boundaries of the land leased to the petitioner are shown as under: North : Part of the Sy.no.93 East : Sy.No.101/3 South : Part of the Sy.No.83 West : Sy.No.100 In the proceedings, dated 29.05.2008, the boundaries of the land leased in favour of the 5th respondent are shown as under: North : S.No.89 East : S.No.101/1 Q.L.area held by M/s. V.M.S. Granites South : S.No.89 Hill Portion West : S.No.100 A comparison of both the boundaries discloses that the land in Survey No.100 was shown as western boundary, both for the one in Survey No.101/1 as well as that in Survey No.98/3. There exists a clear factual mistake. Respondents 1 to 4 do not appear to have bestowed their attention, while ﬁxing the boundaries. Being the earlier lessee, the petitioner is entitled, as of right, to carry on the mining operations in one hectare in Survey No.101/1. The boundaries of the land leased in favour of the 5th respondent have to be ﬁxed, in such a way, as not to overlap or cover the area, that is leased to the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 4th respondent to take necessary steps to ﬁx and mention the boundaries of the respective lands leased to the petitioner, on the one hand, and the 5th respondent, on the other, in such a way, that no land which is leased to the petitioner is aﬀected by grant of lease in favour of the 5th respondent. He shall issue notices to both the parties before ﬁxing the boundaries. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 22.10.2008 Note: Issue C.C. in two days. (B/o) JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15282 of 2008 Date: 22.10.2008 JSU