IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28851 of 2009 Between: G. Venkataswamy … Petitioner And The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Kurnool & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P. Veera Reddy Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Mines & Geology Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri J. Janakirami Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28851 of 2009 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in taking steps for renewal of mining lease in favour of respondent No.4 over an extent of Ac.4.64 cents in Sy.No.1136/1 of Betamcherla Village and Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri J. Janakirami Reddy for respondent No.4. In respect of the abovementioned land, the petitioner was granted mining lease for a period of 10 years on 18.12.1999. The petitioner claimed that the land belongs to him and respondent No.4, misrepresenting that the land belongs to the Government, obtained the mining lease. It is the case of respondent No.4 that the abovementioned land is Government poramboke land and that the petitioner has no right over it. Be that as it may, the petitioner apprehending that the mining lease in favour of respondent No.4 may be renewed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the present writ petition. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, it is inter alia stated that the land belongs to the Government and that when the petitioner sought to interfere with his possession, respondent No.4 filed O.S.No.228 of 2007 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone for grant of perpetual injunction and that in I.A.No.483 of 2007 ad interim injunction was granted in his favour, which was made absolute thereafter. He further stated that on the false complaint given by the petitioner, a criminal case was registered and that the same ended in his acquittal in C.C.No.141 of 2007. At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner’s application for renewal of mining lease is pending. In my opinion, it is not possible for this Court to resolve the disputed questions of fact on the title over the land in question. The petitioner is permitted to file detailed objections along with the material in support of his claim of ownership over the land in question within a period of four weeks from today. Similarly, respondent No.4 is also entitled to file reply and the material on which he seeks to place reliance. On receipt of such material, respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the issue before considering the application of respondent No.4 for renewal of mining lease. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.37465 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 22.04.2010 ES Note:- Issue CC in one week. ES