THE HONOURABLE SRI JUTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.652 of 2009, W.P.11907 OF 2007, W.P.21364 OF 2008, S.A.974 OF 2006 AND 1182 OF 2006 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since all these matters involve the common questions and the subject matter, hence at the request of the counsel on both sides in each of the matter, they are being taken up together for disposal. Accordingly, all of them were heard together. For the purpose of convenience of consideration, which ultimately needs to be arrived at on the controversy amongst the parties, it necessitates elucidation of each case on the facts and circumstances as they arise. W.A.No.652 of 2009 is at the instance of a 3rd party viz., M/s.Midwest Granites Private Limited, Hyderabad, who is not a party to the main proceedings in the Writ or the interlocutory application in respect of which the present proceedings arise, and which is filed with an application for grant of leave to file appeal, which has been granted, as per the orders in WAMP.No.1103 of 2009 in W.A.No.652 of 2009 dated 1-5-2009. The proposed appellant sought to set forth a claim in respect of the very same subject matter. Hence an opportunity of hearing is being given to enable it to enable the court to have assistance from all the quarters and all the shades for better appreciation. However, having regard to the fact that this appeal is only against an interlocutory order and the main Writ in W.P.No.21364 of 2008 is being heard on merits together, on request from both the sides, it is needless to mention that the said interim orders dated 1-5-2009 passed by the learned Single Judge is subject to the final orders and the conclusions that could be arrived at and passed in these proceedings, hence, it does not call for a separate consideration on its own, though however, the contentions and the pleas in respect of the claim as set forth on behalf of the appellant have also come up for consideration while disposing of all these matters. Coming to the main Writ in W.P.No.21364 of 2008, which is filed by the petitioner therein viz., M/s.Venkateswara Granites, Hyderabad, seeking a Writ of Mandamus assailing the correctness and validity of the proceedings in R.C.No.E1-2324-2002, dated 1-1-2008 passed by the respondent No.4 viz., the District Collector, Prakasham District, Ongole and for further directions to the said District Collector for issuance of no- objection certificate for grant of quarry lease to the said petitioner in the land in Sy.No.55 to an extent of Ac.15-00 situated at R.L. Puram, Cheemakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. The case of the said petitioner is that the main village viz., R.L.Puram, Cheemakurthy Mandal was an inam estate falling within the mischief of provisions of the Madras Estates Act, 1908 and consequent on the abolition of all estates under the provisions of A.P. Estates Abolition Act, 1948, all the lands situated therein are vested in the government. Of which, the land bearing Sy.No.55 consists to an extent of Ac.300. Under Section 15 of the said Act, ryotwari pattas were granted initially in the year 1960 in favour of the persons in personal cultivation. Similarly, pattas were granted to one V.Pankajamma, Poturi Subba Rao, M.Leela Kumar by the then Tahsilsar on 3-10-1970 and 15-3-1971 each to an extent of Ac.5- 00, on collection of the market value. Thereafter, pattedar passbooks were issued on 20-10-1981 and they have been all along in possession and enjoyment thereof. However, in view of action on the part of the authorities to grant lease from out of the said patta lands, knowing from the newspapers, these pattedars filed a suit in O.S.No.138 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, Ongole seeking for permanent injunction against the authorities, /the defendants, namely respondents 5 to 6 viz., The District Collector, Prakasham District, Ongole, The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole, Prakasham District and Mandal Revenue Officer, Cheemakurthy Mandal, Cheemakurthy, Prakasham District restraining them from leasing out the said extent of Ac.15-00 in Sy.No.55 without knowledge and consent of the pattedars. The said suit was contested by the said authorities denying the very validity, correctness and genuineness of the pattas as claimed by them and further stating that all those documents are forged and bogus. However, after a regular trial wherein accepting the version as given to by DW.1, who is the Assistant in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the respondent No.6 admitting the signature of the Tahsildar on the pattas and grant of pass books later and the reiteration of possession of the said plaintiffs in the Commissioners’ report, on local inspection, the said suit was decreed as per the Judgment and Decree dated 5-8-1998. Aggrieved thereby, the said defendants filed an appeal in A.S.No.112 of 2000, but the same was dismissed for non- prosecution viz., for non-payment of batta. Later, on the application filed in I.A.No.528 of 2002 seeking condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration, though the appellate Court dismissed the application, however, in a revision this Court condoned the delay and directed for hearing the matter on merits. Ultimately, it is necessary to mention here at this stage that the said appeal was again heard on merits and dismissed as per the judgment and decree dated 13-4-2006, on the file of the I Additional District Judge at Ongole. As against the said judgment and decree, the said defendants and as well as the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Hyderabad have filed separate second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure viz., S.A.No.974 of 2006 and S.A.1182 of 2006 and the same are pending along with other matters. Meanwhile, it is the case of the petitioner that during the dependency of the said appeals the pattedars filed an application on 26-2- 2001 for grant of license for quarrying the granite on their land. However, it was not considered on the ground that the same was not entered into the prohibitory book as per the orders dated 8-8-1988 by the District Collector. Therefore, the said pattedars filed a Writ in WP.No.9969 of 2002 challenging the said orders. The said Writ was taken up along with another batch of cases in W.A.1000 of 2004 wherein a challenge was made against the proceedings of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.267 and 268 dated 27-9-1997 and 29-9-1997, respectively, whereby the government reserved an extent of Ac.61.50 cents out of the extent of Ac.86.50 cents in favour of the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation for undertaking mining operation. Ultimately, all these matters came to be disposed of by this Court as per the orders dated 24th March 2004 upholding the reservation made in favour of the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation and further holding that the pattedars are not entitled for consideration of their application. However, it was pointed out that the appeal which is pending in A.S.No.112 of 2000 has to be considered on its own merits uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the said order. That apart, the respondent No.6 in the writ petition viz., the Mandal Revenue Officer filed an application in FIRs.168/2005 on the file of the Cheemakurthy Police Station complaining against the said pattedars that the D.K Pattas produced by them in civil suit in O.S.No.138 of 1992 are fabricated and forged. Thereupon, the said pattedars challenged the correctness of the said proceedings by way of a quash petition under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure in Crl.P.No.33/2006. This Court allowed the said petition as per the orders dated 27-10-2006 and quashed the said proceedings in the FIR 168/2005. The claim as set forth by the petitioner in this writ petition is that it is a partnership firm of which the said pattedars are constituted as one amongst the partners. They filed an application dated 3-3-2005 with the respondent No.5 viz., The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology for grant of quarry lease for granite. However, the said application was forwarded by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, respondent No.5 to the Mandal Revenue Officer, respondent No.6 for a report. Since no such report is forthcoming as mandatorily required within the period of 30 days as per G.O.Ms.No.181, Industries and Commerce (Mines-I) Department dated 28-5-1998, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.18181 of 2006, which was disposed of as per the orders of this Court dated 18-9-2006 directing the respondent No.6 viz., the Mandal Revenue Officer to consider the application and send a report to the respondent No.5 within a period of four weeks. In pursuance thereof, the Mandal Revenue Officer has issued the proceedings in R.C.No.A/222/06, dated 13-10-2006 rejecting the petitioner’s claim on the ground that the orders passed in the aforementioned batch in W.P.No.9969 of 2002 are still in force and the government had granted no objection to APMDCL in G.O.Ms.No.120 dated 22-1-2005 covering an extent of Ac.61-50 cents, and therefore, the grant of any lease to an extent Ac.15-00 would have to be considered only after disposal of A.S.No.112 of 2000. On this the petitioner had filed the said representations dated 3-1-2007 and 23-5-2007 informing about the disposal of the said appeal in A.S.112 of 2000 and for issuance of the no-objection certificate. However, since again no action is forthcoming, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.11907 of 2007 (which is also being taken up along with this entire batch for deposal) wherein the challenge was made against the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 13-10-2006 declining to grant no-objection certificate in favour of the petitioner. In the said writ petition the petitioner has filed an interlocutory application in WPMP.NO.14790 of 2007 seeking a direction against the respondent No.4, the District Collector for consideration of the said application. This Court as per the orders dated 12-7-2007 directed the respondent No.4, the District Collector to consider the said application dated 23-5-2007 within a period of four weeks. Thereupon, there has been a re-examination on the part of the respondent No.4, the District Collector wherein after inspection by him for the purpose of considering the application, it was stated that there was no land in Sy.No.55/5 for consideration in favour of the petitioner. It was further stated that an extent of Ac.86.50 cents in the said Sy.No.55 was declared as surplus under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Ceiling and Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. At the instance of the declarations filed by the declarants Sri Guda Subramanyam and Guda Kameshwaramma w/o Chidhambharam in C.C.Nos.878 and 982/OGL/75, and the possession of the surplus land was taken on 28-6-1982. However, after a long gap of 23 years the said declarants had filed Writ in W.P.3694 of 2005 for redelivery of the surrendered land on the ground that in fact there is no excess claim and that the land in question is not an agricultural land. Hence, as per the proceedings dated 1-1-2008, which is impugned in this writ petition. It was stated that, the petitioners request was not taken up in a proper perspective in the existing scenario and remained unconsidered, since the District Collector viz., respondent No.4 proceeded on the footing that the government had granted a lease to an extent of Ac.25-00 out of surplus of 86.50 cents to one P.Rama Rao as per G.O.Rt.No.261 dated 1-3-1989, and further granted a no-objection to APMDCL to an extent of Ac.61.50 cents under G.O.Ms.No.120, Revenue Dated 22-1-2005. Further, since in view of the directions issued in the aforementioned batch for consideration of the appeal in A.S.No.112 of 2000 on its own merits and independently and uninfluenced by any other proceedings and observations made therein, the application of the petitioner could only be considered after the disposal of the second appeal, which has been filed against the said dismissal order and the same is pending and after disposal of the afore mentioned writ petition in W.P.No.3694 of 2005 filed by the above mentioned declarants. Hence, the writ petition. The main ground urged on behalf of the petitioner assailing the non-consideration of the petitioner’s request in the application is that the reasons and the grounds mentioned in the impugned proceedings dated 1-1-2008 are absolutely unsustainable and are not valid either in law or on facts. It is the case of the petitioner that their claim in respect of Ac.15-00 cents has nothing to do nor overlap in any manner with other area in the said larger extent in Sy.No.55 (which is to an extent of Ac.300) nor the alleged surplus land, which is stated to have been taken possession as assailed in W.P.3694 of 2001. Therefore, the petitioners case requires to be considered on its own and more so in view of the categorical and consistent findings as arrived at by both the courts in the civil suit. Thus is the attack of the petitioner against the impugned proceedings dated 1-1- 2008. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents herein in this writ petition, which is sworn to by Sri Ramchandra Reddy, who is the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole it is reiterated that the R.L. Puram village was originally an estate village taken over by the government under the Andhra Pradesh Estates Abolition Act, 1948 and converted into ryotwari in the year 1961. On this, the land in Sy.No.55 to an extent of Ac.300 was declared as patta land vide Patta No.244 and the pattedars being Telegapalli Krishnaiah, Guda Chidambaraiah, Telagapalli Ramakrishnaiah and Telegapalli Laxmi Narsamma. Sri Guda Subramanyam s/o Chidambaraiah and Guda Kameshwaramma w/o Chidambaraiah filed a declaration under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, and as per the proceedings after a regular enquiry in CC.875/932/OGL/T5 dated 22-1-1977 the Land Reforms Tribunal declared the surplus land equivalent to 2.6394 and 0.8989 Standard Holding and accepted the surrender of the land admeasuring Ac.98.44 cents as per the orders dated 18-12-1981, of which the declarants surrender was to an extent of Ac.86.50 cents in Sy.No.55 and the possession was taken on 20-6-1982. The said land is unfit for cultivation but contains valuable granite. It was entered in POB by the District Collector, Ongole as per the proceedings in Rc.J1/6953/1987 dated 8-8-1988. The proceedings in O.S.138 of 1992 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Ongole at the instance of Smt. Ippagunta Pankajamma and two others are admitted including the plea taken by the defendants therein to the effect that the pattas claimed by the said plaintiffs are forged and the pattedar pass books which they rely on do not relate to the village. Admittedly, the suit was decreed and the appeal in A.S.No.112 of 2000 was dismissed by the appellate Court as per the Judgment and Decree dated 13-4-2006, as against the same, the appeal in S.A.No.974 of 2006 is filed and the same is pending. Therefore, referring to the said proceedings and the proceedings in W.P.No.3694 of 2005 at the instance of Sri Guda Subramanyam the case of the petitioner’s cannot be considered. It is necessary to state that earlier the Government vide its G.O.Rt No. 1290 Revenue (L.Ref) Department dated 27.8.1991 granted lease of 15 acres each to four firms for mining purpose from out of the land of Ac.61.50 said to have been surrendered by Guda Subramanyam as surplus agricultural land in the year 1962. The Government in its G.O.Rt No. 1290 Revenue Department dated 21.2.1998 issued show cause notices to all the above four firms to explain why the lease granted to them shall not be cancelled since the Government reserved this land in Survey No. 55 R.L. Puram village to an extent of Ac.61.50 in the interest of public, to explore the same by the APMDC to get more money to the exchequer of the APMDC and this decision of the Government was challenged by several people through writ and writ appeals in which the pattadars company also filed a writ in W P No. 9969 of 2002 requesting to direct the concerned for issue of NOC for exploration of mining operations. The MRO in his counter affidavit filed in W P No. 9969 of 2002 on behalf of the third and fifth respondents states as under; “the extent of survey No. 55 of R.L.Puram village, Chimakurthy mandal is Ac.285.60 declared as patta land vide patta no. 244 recorded in the names of Telekapalli Subramanyam, Guda Rambhotlu, Guda Venkataramaiah, Telekepalli Krishnaiah, Guda Chidambaraiah, Telekapalli Ramakrishnaiah and Telekepalli Lakshmi Narasamma as Joint Pattadars”. As per survey , the S.No.55 is sub-divided as follows; Village Survey Number Extent in Classification with sub division R.L. Puram 55/1 55/2 55/3A 55/3B 55/3C 55/4A 55/4B 55/5 55/6 1.00 6.00 18.90 2.32 47.64 37.78 39.56 86.50 45.90 Patta Patta Cattle breeding Station N.S.Canal Cattle breeding station -do- Patta Land surrendered to Government Patta 285.60 Survey No. 55/5 measuring Ac. 86.50 o RL Puram village of Chimakurthy mandal was declared as surplus land under A.P.L R (COAH) Act, 1973 from the declarant in C C No. 878 and 982/OGL/1975 and the same was taken possession on 20.6.1982. As the land was unfit for cultivation and it contains valuable granite and to avoid illicit mining and to protect valuable land, it was entered in Prohibitory Order Book vide collector, Ongole RC.J1/6953/1987 dated 8.8.1988. The Division Bench passed a common judgment dismissing all the writ petitions and writ appeals allowing the writ petitions of the State as well as that of APMDC while giving relief to the pattadars company with the following findings; However, we may hasten to add that the applications preferred by the authorities in A S No. 112 of 2000 shall have to be considered on their own merits uninfluenced by the observations, if any made in this order.” In view of the aforesaid pleadings on behalf of the parties, it again needs no reiteration in regard to the other writ petition filed in W.P.No.11907 of 2007 by the petitioner to see that the questions involved would virtually run on the same lines and also parallelly as set forth by the respective parties including the authorities in the above writ petition. Hence, it is not necessary to delve into or consider the relief sought for in the said writ petition. The said writ in W.P.No.11907 of 2007 is filed against the orders passed by the respondent No.6, the Mandal Revenue Officer rejecting the claim of the petitioner in view of the fact that pendency of the batch of the writ petitions and issuance of the no-objection in favour of the APMDCL. Since the entire said batch has already been disposed of upholding the reservation made in favour of the APMDCL, the said order no longer subsists nor can go against in any manner in view of the consideration of the entire aspect afresh from all the perspectives in these proceedings. It will be seen that the stand of respondent no.6 in his proceedings dated 13.10.2006 which has been impugned in W P No. 11907 of 2007 is now entirely upset by the proceedings of respondent no.4 dated 1.1.2008. Firstly, it is now evident from the order of the Collector that the total extent of land in survey no. 55 is 200 Acres and not 285 acres as had been stated by respondent no. 6 during his cross examination in O S No. 138 of 1992. Therefore, the revenue authorities had raised questions about the existence of Ac.15.00 of land belonging to the petitioner in the said survey number. Now that the collector had admitted in his proceedings which corroborate the findings of the lower court and the Appellate Court that the extent of the land in the said survey number is 300 Acres and not 285 acres as is being alleged by the respondents, the fact that not only thus the petitioner have title by virtue of D.K.Patta in respect of the Ac.15 but also the fact that the said land in reality exists becomes evident. In W.A.652 of 2009, as stated above, which has been filed by M/s.Midwest Granites Private Limited, Hyderabad the grievance was against the directions issued by this Court for consideration of the application. The case of the appellant is that the Government has reserved the land in Survey No. 55/5 to an extent of Ac. 61.50 to be allotted to the APMDCL and the APMDCL has given the NOC for mining operations to an extent of Ac.41.50 to the Midwest company and the balance of Ac.15.00 will also be delivered to them on disposal of the Court matters. Further stated that it has nothing to say about the genuineness about the pattas and pattadar pass books. However, as per the terms of the pattas, the land cannot be alienated within three years and ten years period.It is their case that neither the suit nor the question involved or the findings given have no bearing on the title and are in regard to the issuance of lease in favour of the persons who are entitled to, and therefore, it was stated that the District Collector was justified in not considering the application of the writ petitioner for grant of no-objection certificate. Thus the entire gamut of plea or claim as set forth by the appellant is to fall back on the orders of the District Collector passed on 1-1-2008 as being one aptly considered and disposed. Of the other two appeals, which are second appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal in S.A.No.974 of 2006 is by the defendants 1 to 3 in the said suit viz., the Mandal Revenue Officer, the District Collector and the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, whereas the appeal in S.A.No.1182 of 2006 is by the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, which has been added as respondent No.5 in the appeal in A.S.112 of 2000, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ongole. Both these second appeals arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs therein who have been added as respondents 1 to 4 in S.A.No.974 of 2006 and respondents 4 to 7 in S.A.No.1182 of 2006. The said suit was filed seeking for permanent injunction restraining the said defendants/appellants from leasing out the suit schedule property without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs. The case of the plaintiffs virtually again runs on the same lines as set forth in the paras about the checkered events as stated in W.P.No.21364 of 2008. The entire claim of the plaintiffs emanates from the D.K pattas granted by the then Tahsildar on 31.10.1970 and 15.3.1971 to an extent of Ac.5-00 each in Survey No. 55 of R.L. Puram village and since then there are being in possession and enjoyment, and however, the defendants without any right, title or interest of whatsoever in nature were trying to meddle there with, hence their claim whereby they issued a notice under Section 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure and filed the suit. Contesting the said claim, the case of the defendants which is inter alia put forth by the defendant No.1 and which is adopted by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 is denying the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs and further raising a specific plea that the alleged pattas issued to the plaintiffs are bogus and some are forged. The pattedar passbooks filed by the plaintiffs do not contain initials of the defendants and further it is stated that the land in Sy.No.55 was part of the excess land, which is taken from the respective owners by the government, and therefore, issuance of any patta in the year 1970 does not arise and the same is totally false. On these and other several detailed allegations as set forth in the respective pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are in rightful possession of plaint schedule land? 2. Whether the pattas relied upon by plaintiffs are genuine? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any permanent injunction? 4. To what relief?