THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.531 of 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt Justice T.Meena Kumari) Questioning the order dated 19.2.2003 passed in WP No.1149 of 1999 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the present writ appeal has been preferred. 5th respondent is the appellant herein and 1st respondent herein is writ petitioner. The parties herein will be referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner submitted an application to the Director of Mines & Geology (1st respondent in the writ petition) for grant of quarry lease in Sy.No.1 of Addukonda Vilalge, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District for a period of 15 years and he came to know that 2nd respondent recommended his application to 1st respondent for consideration. Subsequently, on the instructions of 1st respondent vide Memo No.125/M1(2)/95, dated 21.10.1995 not to grant any quarry lease, the petitioner filed WP No.21941 of 1998 which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court quashing the said Memo and directing 1st respondent to dispose of all pending quarry lease applications within a period of two months. But, the 1st respondent did not act upon his application. On the representation of 5th respondent that the area granted to him is a plain land, 2nd respondent visited the area on 20.11.1998, forwarded a report dated 4.12.1998 stating that the adjoining area sought for by 5th respondent cannot be considered for inclusion as the same is already proposed for grant in favour of the petitioner and opined that the request of 5th respondent is only an after thought in order to prevent grant of lease in the adjoining area in favour of the petitioner. Again on 11.01.1999 3rd and 4th respondents visited the field and conducted a joint survey behind the back of the petitioner and demarcated a major part of the area which was recommended in favour of the petitioner by 2nd respondent and therefore, the action of the 3rd and 4th respondents in conducting re-survey without notice to the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. 5th respondent filed counter-affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner contending that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the action of 3rd and 4th respondents. The learned Single Judge, after perusing the entire material placed before him, held that the respondents should not have entertained the representations made by 5th respondent and conducted a joint re-survey on 11.1.1999 and entertaining of the representations made by 5th respondent cannot be held to be legal, directed the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner as per the survey conducted on 31.12.1997 and recommendations made by the respondents for grant of lease in favour of the petitioner as per the survey and demarcation of the land for which he has applied in Sy.No.1 over an extent of 3 hectares. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. A perusal of the material goes to show that the appellant made an application on 4.2.1997 for grant of lease and to that effect a survey was conducted and a report was submitted by the District Collector recommending the case of the appellant and the appellant vide letter dated 5.1.1998 accepted the demarcation of plan and 3rd respondent permitted him to conduct quarrying operations vide proceedings dated 3.6.1998. But, when the application of the writ petitioner dated 17.3.1998 came up for consideration for grant of lease after conducting survey, the appellant started making representations stating that there is a mistake in granting the land on lease, annexing the rough sketch to the lease deed and demarcation of the land, which is not permissible in law, at this point of time when he is enjoying the lease hold rights from 3.6.1998. He is estopped by his conduct from making such representations having accepted the leased premises and gave consent. The official respondents ought not to have entertained the representations made by the appellant and entertaining the representations cannot be held to be legal. Further, the conduct of the appellant that there is a mistake in granting the land and demarcation has to be doubted, at this stage, for the reason that he has already enjoying the lease hold rights of the land since 3.6.1998 and that such mistake as pointed out by the appellant is purely a disputed question of fact which cannot be entertained by this Court. Under those circumstances, we are of the view that there are no merits in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. _____________________ (T.MEENA KUMARI,J) ____________________ (SANJAY KUMAR, J) Dated: 16.06.2009 rkk