IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.20194, 21108, 21109, 21110, 21111, 21112, 21480, 21608, 21614, 21620 and 21935 of 2008 WP.No.20194 of 2008 Between: Mr. N. Durga Srinivas … Petitioner And The Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Guntur and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri G. Kalyan Chakravarthy Counsel for respondents 1&3: AGP for Mines & Geology Counsel for respondent No.2: GP for Forests This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.20194, 21108, 21109, 21110, 21111, 21112, 21480, 21608, 21614, 21620 and 21935 of 2008 COMMON ORDER:- As all these writ petitions raised common issues of fact and law, they are heard and being disposed of together. The dispute in these writ petitions centers around whether the areas over which the petitioners have been granted quarry leases for Napa slabs are part of reserved forest or not. The petitioners were granted quarry leases for Napa slabs in respect of various survey numbers, which include survey Nos.673 to 678 and 584/2 of Ratchamallipadu Village, Veldurthy Mandal, Guntur District. The Divisional Forest Officer submitted a report on 15.11.2007 to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Dachepalli, wherein it is stated that the lands in respect of which 19 Napa slab quarry leases were granted in Sy.No.584/2, 673, 674 and 676 over an extent of 44.584 hectares are part of Mandadi Reserve Forest Block No.1, Veldurthy beat and requested him to cancel the said quarry leases with immediate effect. Accordingly, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Dachepalli, submitted his proposals on 08.01.2008 to respondent No.1 for cancellation of the leases. Respondent No.1 in turn issued show cause notices dated 21.02.2008 to the petitioners calling upon them to explain whey the leases shall not be cancelled. The petitioners submitted their explanations. Thereafter, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology submitted a further report to the effect that the District Collector, Guntur has constituted a team for verifying the boundaries and that the joint inspection report prepared after the joint inspection conducted on 25.05.2008 and 10.06.2008 confirmed that the lands in question are falling in Mandadi Block No.1 reserved forest. After considering the explanations submitted by the petitioners, respondent No.1 passed the impugned orders canceling the mining leases granted in their favour for the unexpired period up to 11.01.2015. These orders are called in question in these writ petitions. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned orders of cancellation on the basis of the survey report stated to have been conducted behind the back of the petitioners cannot be sustained. The learned counsel further submitted that even the material placed by the respondents along with the counter affidavits shows that proper joint inspection was not conducted. In this regard, the petitioners have relied on the joint inspection report dated 12.06.2008. Opposing these contentions, the learned Government Pleader for Forests submitted that though some of the petitioners were given notices, they have failed to attend the joint inspection undertaken by the team constituted by the District Collector for this purpose. He placed reliance on one of the joint inspection reports and stated that the survey team has identified the boundary stones of reserved forest in Sy.Nos.673 to 678 and that when a further survey was proposed to be conducted on 12.06.2008, several persons lead by Sri Nimmagadda Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, Ex-MLA, who is also one of the lessees, obstructed the survey team from conducting the joint survey and therefore further survey could not be conducted. A perusal of the impugned orders show that after the explanations were submitted by the petitioners, respondent No.1 received further reports from the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Dachepalli and the Divisional Forest Officer, Guntur on 30.08.2008 and 27.08.2008 respectively. Though the learned Government Pleader submitted that some of the petitioners were given notices before the survey was proposed to be conducted neither a plea to that effect was raised in the counter affidavit nor any material is filed along with the counter affidavit in support of this submission. In my opinion, before concluding that the leased areas fall within the reserved forest, a fair and reasonable opportunity is required to be afforded to the lessees in whose favour a right is created by the State by granting leases. While granting mining leases in reserved forest without following the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and the Mines Development and Regulation Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder is illegal, as the mining leases have already been granted, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to follow a fair and transparent procedure to determine whether the lands covered by the mining leases, form part of reserved forest or not. Unless a proper opportunity is afforded to the mining lessees, it cannot be said that the respondents have followed the fair procedure in making such determination. Evidently, this procedure has not been followed by the respondents. A perusal of joint report dated 20.06.2008 shows that the joint inspection team visited the place in question on 12.06.2008 and they were obstructed by the abovementioned persons along with several villagers and the quarry labourers from completing the joint inspection. This report would thus go to show that even the so called joint inspection was not completed. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by respondent No.1 based on such incomplete joint report cannot be sustained in law. The learned Government Pleader for Forests submitted that while the records would clearly reveal that the leased areas fall within the notified reserved forest, the lessees lead by Sri Nimmagadda Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, who also filed a separate writ petition, namely, Writ Petition No.9866 of 2008, have deliberately prevented the joint inspection team from completing the re-survey. As noted above, in the joint inspection report, dated 20.06.2008, it was clearly stated that the joint inspection team was obstructed by the abovementioned person on 12.06.2008. The lessees cannot be allowed to cause such obstruction in future. In my opinion, so long as the mining operations are allowed to be carried on, it is not possible for the respondents to complete the re-survey. Therefore, in these circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms. 1) The impugned orders are set aside. The joint inspection team constituted by the District Collector, which submitted its two reports earlier, shall conduct a fresh survey after all the lessees were given notices by respondent No.3. On behalf of the lessees one person each shall be permitted to be present at the joint survey. If all or any of them do not choose to be present after receiving notice in this regard, the joint inspection team is entitled to go ahead with the survey, complete the same within four weeks from today and submit a report to respondent No.1. 2) On receipt of the report, respondent No.1 shall issue notices and furnish copies of the joint inspection report to the petitioners. The petitioners shall file their objections, if any to the notices within two weeks from the date of receipt of such notices. Within one month from the date of issuance of notices by respondent No.1, he shall pass appropriate orders. 3) Till completion of the joint inspection/joint survey, the petitioners are not entitled to carry on mining operations. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, in the manner indicated above, the respective WPMPs filed in this batch of cases stand disposed of. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.07.2010 ES