THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5970 OF 2010 DATED:29.03.2010 Between: M/s. Mahaveer Stone Crushers, Maisigandi, rep., by its Managing Partner, Manikchand Jain, S/o.Jodhraj Jain, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.5-5-6, Malakunta, Hyderabad .. Petitioner And The Commissioner of Survey Settlements And Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5970 OF 2010 ORDER: The first respondent entertained suo-motu revision powers under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act 1313 Fasli and directed the District Collector to submit a report along with the revenue records in respect of the land in Survey Nos.260/15 and 260/16 admeasuring Acs.400.00 situated at Kadthal Village of Amangal Mandal in Mahabubnagar District. The land is claimed by third respondent to be the forest land as notified under Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Forests Act, 1967. While doing so, the first respondent directed that the order of the District Revenue Officer, dated 07.02.1990, whereby and whereunder it was directed to correct the entries relating to Survey No.260 as revised Setwar treating it as non-forest land, be kept in abeyance. The petitioner is a lessee of M/s. Mohanlal Jain and others, who claimed to be the owners of the land. They are aggrieved by the order of the first respondent insofar as if the same keeps the District Revenue Officer’s order in abeyance. They contend that the land in question is a patta land and is not a notified forest land. They further contend that the order of abeyance without notice to them is unsustainable in law. This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area) and learned Government Pleader for Forests. There is no doubt that while keeping the order of the District Revenue Officer, dated 07.02.1990, in abeyance the first respondent ought to have issued a notice to the petitioner, who is allegedly in possession of the land for the purpose of mining. But on this ground, this Court is not inclined to set aside the order impugned in the Writ Petition, as it amounts to permitting the petitioner to use forest land (if it is so) without necessary sanction from the Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that on condition that the petitioner shall stop all mining operations in the land comprised in Survey Nos.260/15 and 260/16, the matter is remitted to the first respondent with a direction to reconsider the matter after giving notice to the petitioner. It is needless to mention that the petitioner may place all material before the first respondent and also seek necessary orders. The order of the first respondent be kept in abeyance till the petitioner is heard and appropriate order is passed. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 29.03.2010 KH