IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 25579 of 2007 Between: Siddala Ravi Babu, S/o.Late.Kistaiah, R/o.Karakambad(V),Renigunta(M), Chittoor Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt.of A.P Rep.by its Principal Secretary Industries & Commerce, M-III Secretariat,Hyderabad 2 The Director of Mines& Geology,Hyderabad 3 The Deputy Director Mines& Geology, Kadapa 4 The Asst.Director of Mines &Geology, Chittoor Dist .....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 to issue a writ,order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the inaction of the respondents in not executing mining lease deed in my favour for quartzite over an extent of 15.336 hectares in Sy.No.153/1 of Karakambadi(V) Renigunta(M) Chittoor Dist for a period of 20 years prusuant to G.O.Ms.No.184 industries & Commerce (M-III) Department dt.28-8-2004 is arbitrary,illegal unjust and in violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the cosntitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to get said mining lease executed in my favour and pass such other or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.C.RANGAPPA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard Sri S.C. Rangappa, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Industries. 2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not executing mining lease deed in favour of the petitioner for Quartzite over an extent of 15.336 hectares in Sy.No.153/1 of Karakambadi village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District, for a period of 20 years pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.184, Industries & Commerce (M-III) Department, dated 28.8.2004, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to get the said mining lease executed in favour of the petitioner and pass such other suitable orders. 3. The petitioner submitted an application in Form I to the Government of Andhra Pradesh through the second respondent for grant of mining lease for Quartzite over the patta land of the petitioner admeasuring 44.95 acres in S.No.153/1 of Karakambadi village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District for a period of 20 years. The petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards preliminary expenses under Challan No.45992, dated 22.11.2003 as per sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and a further sum of Rs.1,000/- being the application fee. Along with the application, the petitioner submitted a map to the authorities showing the area applied for. Thereafter, 4th respondent inspected the area applied for along with surveyor and the Royalty Inspector and submitted his report to the second respondent who in turn forwarded the papers to the Government of Andhra Pradesh with his remarks. On the basis of aforementioned reports, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.184, Industries & Commerce (M-III), Department, dated 28.8.2004, granting mining lease for Quartzite over an extent of 15.336 hectares in S.No.153/1 of Karakambadi village for a period of 20 years in petitioner’s favour. Pursuant to the said G.O., 4th respondent forwarded a communication Letter No.5115/M/2003, dated 08.10.2004, directing the petitioner to attend his office on or before 27.2.2005 with the documents specified therein for the purpose of executing mining lease deed. In compliance of the said communication, the petitioner attended the office of the 4th respondent on 22.2.2005 and handed over to him all the documents called for and requested him to execute the mining lease deed at an early date. Subsequently, on 10.3.2005, 05.5.2005, 31.12.2005, 08.02.2006 and 19.9.2007 the petitioner reminded the 4th respondent to execute the mining lease deed and also obtained acknowledgements therefor, but there was no response from him. 4. Further it is averred that the father of the writ petitioner late S.Krishnaiah was the absolute owner of the above land and on his death it devolved on petitioner’s brothers, mother and the petitioner. While so, on 01.9.2003 the Divisional Forest Officer, Wild Life Management, Tirupati, highhandedly tried to interfere with petitioner’s possession and enjoyment over the said land. Therefore, they filed a suit O.S.No.1316 of 2003 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, against the said Forest Officer and others and obtained interim injunction in I.A.No.1476 of 2003 on 02.5.2004. The appeal C.M.A.No.35 of 2004 preferred against the said order was also dismissed. It is also averred that the petitioner handed over the copies of the orders passed by the courts below to the 4th respondent and requested him to execute the mining lease deed pursuant to the above G.O, but he failed to do so. Further, on 14.10.2007 the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents and requested them to see that 4th respondent execute the mining lease deed. Even after acknowledging the said representation, there was no response from them. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 4 it is stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had granted mining lease for Quartzite for an extent of 15.336 hectares in survey No.153/1 of Karkambadi village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District vide G.O.Ms.no.184, Industries & Commerce (M-III) Department, dated 28.8.2004. During processing of application, the Divisional Forest Officer, Wild Life Management, Tirupathi had informed on 01.9.2003 that the area belongs to the Forest Department. The petitioner obtained injunction in I.A.No.1476 of 2003 in O.S.No.1316 of 2003 on 05.7.2004. The Forest Department and the Revenue Department preferred C.M.A.No.35 of 2004 before the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi against the said temporary injunction order made by I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi. In view of the pendency of the suit the order issued through G.O.Ms.No.184, Industries & Commerce (M-III) Department, dated 28.8.2004 was kept in abeyance. The applied area is under dispute as to whether the land is patta land or a forest land. Therefore, this Department could not take any action in executing the lease deed. 6. It is also further stated that the time for execution of the lease deed is within six months from the date of granting as per Rule 31 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Rules’ for the purpose of convenience). Rule 31 dealing with ‘Lease to be executed within six months reads as hereunder: “(1) Where, on an application for the grant of mining lease, an order has been made for the grant of such lease, a lease deed in Form K or in a form as near thereto as circumstances of each case may require, shall be executed within six months of the order or within such further period as the State Government may allow in this behalf and if no such lease deed is executed within the said period due to any default on the part of the applicant, the State Government may remove the order granting the lease and in that event the application fee shall be forfeited to the State Government. (2) The date of the commencement of the period for which a mining lease is granted shall be the date on which a duly executed deed under sub-rule (1) is registered.” In view of the pendency of the matter before IV Additional District Judge, the respondents could not execute the lease deed within six months. After expiry of six months, necessary permission granting extension of time for execution of the lease deed has to be made by the State Government. It is also averred that so far the office had not received any orders granting extension of time for execution of the lease deed. Therefore, the lease deed could not be executed eventhough he had completed all the formalities on 22.02.2005. Even otherwise the lease deed could not be executed due to the dispute in respect of the title of the land. Further it is stated that the land on which the mining lease for Quartzite granted in G.O.Ms.No.184, Industries & Commerce (M- III) Department, dated 28.8.2004 has been in legal dispute as to whether the land is patta land or a forest land. The Forest and Revenue Departments had preferred an appeal against the order passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge and the appeal was disposed of on 31.3.2007. During the pendency of the court litigation, the period of six months prescribed under the Rule aforesaid had expired and no extension of time for executing the lease deed was received by the said office for execution of lease deed. In the absence of any orders, the execution of lease deed will be contrary to the provisions of the Act and also the Rules framed thereunder. It is also averred that the area over an extent of 15.336 hectares in S.No.153/1 of Karakambadi village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District was claimed by the Forest Department and Revenue Department as the said area belonging to the Forest Department. The question whether the said area belongs to Forest Department or not may have to be decided by appropriate civil court. According to the Forest Conservation Act 1980, the Forest Department permission for utilizing the forest area for non-forest purposes is essential. Therefore, execution of lease deed without waiting for the final disposal of the suit will be contrary to the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. 7. A reply affidavit is filed in detail again reiterating the stand taken in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 8. It is not in dispute that a civil suit already had been filed and the same is pending disposal. It is needless to say that an application for temporary injunction had been disposed of and the same had been carried by way of appeal and the C.M.A. also had been disposed of. Certain submissions were made that the order made by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi had attained finality. It is needless to say that the said orders were made on an interlocutory application. In the facts and circumstances of the case, may be the petitioner may have to expedite the hearing and also disposal of the suit. Apart from this aspect of the matter because of the pendency of the civil suit, it appears that there was delay in execution of the lease deed. The stand taken by the counsel for writ petitioner is that it is not the fault of the writ petitioner since the writ petitioner had complied with all the formalities necessary. However, it is stated that in the light of the Rule 31 of the Rules specified above, the petitioner may have to make an appropriate application to condone the delay in terms of Rule 31 before the first respondent. 9. Hence, liberty is given to the writ petitioner to move appropriate application before the first respondent in accordance with law in this regard and let the first respondent take appropriate decision in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances as expeditiously as possible. 10. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ___________________ (P.S. NARAYANA, J) Date: February 26, 2008. Note: Issue CC in two days. //B.O.// BSB ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR