THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.24963 of 2005 Dated: 11.11.2010 Between: T. Laxmi. .. Petitioner. and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: It appears, the petitioner’s father was granted mining lease for Quartz over the land admeasuring 16.020 hectares situated at Karakambadi village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District, for a period of 20 years, vide G.O.Ms.No.564, Industries & Commerce Department, dated 26.09.1981. It is the case of the petitioner that after the death of her father, herself and her sister were recognized as successor lessees of their father. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she submitted an application on 16.05.2001, for renewal of mining lease for a further period of 20 years, and the same is still pending. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions. Respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit stating that the application for renewal of mining lease shall be made at lease twelve months before expiry of the lease, but the petitioner has filed the renewal application belatedly and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for continuing mining operations and also issuance of dispatch permits as per Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. However, the petitioner was asked to attend for inspection and survey of mining lease applied for grant of renewal on 24.08.2001, but he did not attend for the same on the said date, and therefore, he was again asked to attend for inspection and survey on 27.12.2001, and the petitioner failed to attend for the same even on that day also. It is stated that when an application was received for grant of lease for gravel in respect of the same subject land, the Mandal Revenue Officer (M.R.O), Renigunta, was asked to send his report on classification and availability of the land, and the MRO, vide his letter dated 21.11.2003, informed that the area in question is classified as ‘Adavi Poromboke’ and the grant of lease for gravel in the area is highly objectionable. Based on this classification report, this respondent sought for clarification from the MRO as to whether the subject mining lease for quartz can be renewed in favour of the petitioner, and in reply to this, the MRO addressed a letter to the District Collector, Chittoor, clariying that one S.Ravi has applied for grant of lease with a false and fictitious civil suit, claiming extent of Ac.44.95 in S.No.153/1 of Karakambadi village with fake documents, which is covered by dispute, and therefore his case was recommended for rejection. It was further informed by the MRO that the land to an extent of Ac.18.00 in S.No.153/1 is available for renewal of mining lease in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to this, the District Collector, Chittoor, vide his letter dated 18.07.2004, has requested the Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O.), Tirupati, to enquire into the matter as to how the subject land is objectionable in one case and unobjectionable in another case. Thereupon, the R.D.O, Tirupathi, vide his letter dated 25.11.2005 reported to the District Collector, Chittoor, that the subject land is classified as ‘Adavi Poramboke’, which attracts the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and, as such, recommended not to give any lease in the subject survey number of Karkambadi village, Regnugunta Mandal. The orders from the District Collector is awaited. It is further stated that the proposals on the renewal application of the petitioner could not be submitted to the Government, in view of the non-receipt of specific recommendation from the revenue authorities, and that if the area applied for renewal is said to be ‘Adavi Poramboke’, any non-forest activity, such as granting/renewal of mining lease, in the forest areas without prior approval of the Central Government is banned and, therefore, it cannot be deemed that the lease in favour of the petitioner is said to have been extended by further period, without prior approval of the Government of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the clarification from the revenue authorities as to whether the subject land is classified as ‘Adavi Poramboke’ or not has no relevancy to the case on hand. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, her father was granted lease about 20 years back, after completing all the formalities. The question of again seeking a fresh ‘No Objection’ certificate from the M.R.O. or any other authorities does not arise. Learned counsel further submits that if there is any delay in submitting the renewal application, it is always open for the petitioner to file an application to condone the delay as per the relevant provisions of law, but merely because the case of some third party who applied for grant of mining lease for gravel in respect of the subject land was rejected on the ground that the land was classified as ‘Adavi Poramboke’, that analogy cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner and the application of the petitioner cannot be kept pending for consideration on that ground. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court in A.Narendraraja v. Govt. of A.P., Dept. of Mines and Geology[1] and drawn the attention of this Court to para 15, which reads as under: “In my considered opinion, to fall within the ambit of the orders of the Supreme Court either the land must be a notified forest land or at least recorded as ‘forest’ in the relevant records. While it is the case of the respondents that the leased property is neither notified as a reserve forest nor classified as forest in any record, it is the common case that it is classified as “Adavi Poramboke”. Though the word ‘Adavi’ means forest in Telugu, the land is not merely classified as ‘Adavi’, but the word ‘Poramboke’ is suffixed to the said word, which means a waste land. This word itself suggests that no forest growth exists on the land; otherwise, the land would have been classified as ‘Forest’ and not as forest poramboke. In his counter, as noted above, respondent No.3 himself explained how this word is derived from the name of the village ‘Adavibajanawada’.” In the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the renewal application of the petitioner is still pending for consideration, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The respondents are directed to consider the renewal application of the petitioner on its own merits and as per the relevant provisions of law, and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is always open for the petitioner to file an application to condone the delay, if any, in filing the renewal application, and upon filing such an application, the authorities concerned shall dispose of the same on its own merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 11.11.2010 v v [1] 2008 (4) ALD 803