THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22445 of 2002 Date: 30.01.2008 Between: N. Md. Zazeer … Petitioner AND The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.22445 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.5 in interfering with the mining operations of the petitioner in respect of the land comprised in Sy.Nos.19 of Athkur Village, Piddamul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District covered by lease deeds dated 12.04.1999 and 04.10.2002 entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.6, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. A perusal of the record shows that by proceedings dated 22.01.1999 the petitioner was granted lease for quarry of stone over an extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.19 of Athkur Village, Peddamul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner was also granted another quarry lease over an extent of one hectare in the said survey number vide proceedings dated 08.07.2002 and since then he was being given dispatch permit for excavating and carrying minor minerals by the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology on payment of necessary amounts. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 has been intercepting transportation of the mineral excavated from the said land covered by the mining lease deed. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.5 it is averred that the land located in Sy.No.19 of Athkur Village was declared and notified as reserve forest under Section 4 of the Hyderabad Forest Act, on 09.02.1958, wherein a total area of Ac.634.00 gunta was included. Respondent No.5 questioned the authority of respondent Nos.2 and 6 in granting the lease in respect of the land situated in Sy.No.19 and also permit to transport the mineral excavated. If the land in respect of which mining lease is granted is included in the reserve forest, such a lease is per se illegal. The petitioner cannot therefore claim any legitimate right to carry the mineral unlawfully excavated. I am therefore of the view that it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 6 to examine whether the land in respect of which lease was allegedly granted to the petitioner was included in the reserve forest or not. If it is found that the area is included in the reserve forest, they shall initiate appropriate proceedings to cancel the lease after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner. If, however, it is found that the leased land is not included in the reserve forest, respondent Nos.4 and 5 shall not interfere with the mining activities and transportation of mineral by the petitioner. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 30.01.2008 ES