IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.27776 of 2010 BETWEEN G.V.V. Satyanarayana. ... PETITIONER AND The Assistant Director of Mines and Qusrries, Eluru, West Godavari District and three others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. C.C.S. SASTRY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES & GEOLOGY GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: ORDER: Petitioner has applied for grant of quarry lease for extracting Gravel, Myca and Silicon on a extent of Ac.21.38 cents in R.S.Nos.156, 157/1, 3 and 172, which are own patta lands of the petitioner. Petitioner also seeks an additional lease to the extent of Ac.20.00 cents in R.S.No.637 all of Gangolu village, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. Petitioner alleges that his patta lands are not ﬁt for cultivation and as such, he has applied for grant of mining lease and the second respondent – Tahsildar, initially having granted no objection certiﬁcate, has later raised objections on a erroneous impression that the villagers of Gangolu village are objecting to the grant of mining lease with regard to Ac.20.00 cents of land applied for by the petitioner in R.S.No.637. 2. Counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the second respondent wherein to the extent of petitioner’s patta land there does not appear to be any objection. However, the controversy arises only with regard to R.S.No.637, which is classiﬁed as revenue proamboke. The second respondent states about the objection raised by 40 villagers from Gangolu village and justiﬁes his recommendation for not granting mining lease over the said survey number on the ground that the Forest Department has allegedly raised Bamboo plantation on this land. 3. Counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent states that the Tahsildar reported objection by 40 villagers of Bhumolu village and based on that the Tahsildar sent a fresh recommendation declining no objection certificate to the extent of R.S.No.637. 4. While it is true that the correspondence by the petitioner shows that mining as well as revenue authorities were of the opinion that joint survey of the said applied land is required to be conducted to know the factual situation with regard to the said survey numbers and accordingly, the Tahsildar, Gopalapuram Mandal, was requested to arrange for joint inspection to know the ﬁeld status. The present counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Industries Department, referred to above, also states that in para 6 that under letters of the Assistant Director Mines being Lr.No.252/M/2007 dated 31.12.2010, 01.01.2011 and 05.11.2011 requested the Tahsildar to ﬁx up a convenient date for joint inspection to know the factual position in order to process the petitioner’s application further but no communication is received from the Tahsildar, which is precisely the aforesaid inaction, as questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition. 5. In the circumstances, therefore, in view of the fact that the petitioner’s application for grant of mining lease is pending with the respondents since 2007 and it’s further processing is held up only for want of joint inspection, as referred to above, it would be just and appropriate to direct the respondents to conduct a joint inspection of all the lands applied for by the petitioner within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the Tahsildar as well as the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology shall process the petitioner’s application in the light of the joint inspection report as well as G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 28.05.1998 and pass orders thereon expeditiously within a further period of four (4) of such joint inspection. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 2, 2011 DSK