IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 19078 of 2008 Between: 1 Ch. Appa Rao S/o Late Appaiah, Hindu Ambedkar Nagar Jami(V) Jami(M) Vizianagaram District 2 I.Ramachandrudu S/o.Suri Ambedkar Nagar Jami(V) Jami(M) Vizianagaram District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Deputy Director of Mines & Gelogy Government of Andhra Pradesh M.V.P Colony Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District 2 The Assistant Director Mines & Gelogy Government of Andhra Pradesh New R&B Guest House Cantonment Vizianagaram Town,Vizianagaram District 3 The Commissioner of Land Revenue Hyderabad 4 The Government of A.P rep.by its Principal Secretary Education Department Hyderabad 5 The District Collector,Vizianagaram Vizianagaram District 6 M/s.Shoba Memorial Education Society jami Rep.by its President P.Appala Raju,Jami(V) &(M) Vizianagaram District 7 The Regional Director Southern Regional Committee(NCTE) C/o HMT Ltd 1st Floor CSD Building Jalahalli Bangalore-560031 Karnataka State .....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 or order or direction more particuarly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.3&5 in alloting the Kadapa Poramboku land which is meant for quarry operations in favour of 6th respondent College by proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide CLR's B3/5725/92 dt 05-03- 1994 is arbitrary bad and illegal and violation of principles of natural justice is contrary to the norms of the Government of consequently set aside the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dt 05-03-1994 by directing the 6th respondent to shift his College in the institutional Zone and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KURITIBHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Oral order: The writ petition is misconceived. The petitioners claim to be pursuing the occupation of stonecutting. They are aggrieved that respondents 3 and 5 have allotted land of an extent of Ac.4-99 cents in Sy.No. 394 of Jami Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District in favour of the 6th respondent-Educational society, classified as “Konda Poramboke”. According to the petitioners, lands in the Konda Poramboke were being utilised for nearly four decades for quarrying operations, i.e., for quarrying “Charnokit” rock, which is used for construction and road laying purposes. The two respondents claim to have been allotted certain extents of land and state that other land in the Konda Poramboke is granted to the 6th respondent for the purpose of establishing an educational institution. It is apparent from the order of the 3rd respondent dated 5-3-1994 that on the request of the 6th respondent, an extent of Ac.5-00 in Sy.No.394 of Jami Village, classified as Konda Poramboke was granted in favour of the said respondent for construction of a Junior College by the 6th respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners asserts that as the land is classified as Konda Poramboke and contains the minor mineral Charnokit, the entire hill poramboke should be granted only to the stonecutters for the purpose of quarrying stone. Except the desire of the petitioners, no legal principle is cited for this proposition. The property admittedly belongs to the State and is capable for multiple uses, including quarrying operations for using the minor mineral Charnokit for construction and road laying purposes. The State is also at liberty to assign public property to an educational institution for the purpose of starting a Junior college. This, the State did in assigning the property to the 6th respondent for starting a Junior college. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent it is stated that the total extent of Konda Poramboke in Sy.No. 394 is Ac.37-45 cents, of which only an extent of Ac.4-99 cents was alienated to the 6th respondent. There is still remnant an extent of Ac.32-46 cents in which the petitioners have been granted quarry leases only for small extents. In para 5 of the counter-affidavit, the 3rd respondent states that the 6th respondent had also complained that because of the continuing quarrying operation, the educational institution is being affected and stone pieces were falling into the college premises. Upon such complaint, proceedings were initiated for cancellation of the quarrying operations under the provisions of Rules 11 and 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1966. It is also pleaded that the 6th respondent had filed a writ petition No. 8402 of 2007, seeking a direction to the respondents to cancel the quarry lease granted in Sy.No. 394 and 395 of Jami Village. In the facts and circumstances on record in this case, the petitioners are not seen to have made out a case for grant of any relief. The assignment of land of an extent of Ac.4-99 cents to the 6th respondent is neither pleaded nor established to have violated any law. There are no merits. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 27th April, 2009. GRR