IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1259 OF 2009 Dt.28.10.2009 Between: Vaka Srinivasa Reddy and another … Appellants And Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri P. Venugopal Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4: G.P. for Mines and Geology Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6: G.P. for Revenue Counsel for the Respondent No.7: Sri V.L. Surendra Counsel for the Respondent No.8: Sri B. Adinarayana Rao THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1259 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) Being aggrieved by the order passed in W.P. No.25628 of 2008, dt.12.10.2009, this appeal has been filed by the appellants – original petitioners. The land in question has been acquired by the Government authorities for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections of the society as per the Scheme of the State. However, the land has not been used for the purpose for which it was acquired. In the circumstances, looking to the nature of the land and in the interest of revenue, the respondent government authorities decided to use the land for mining purpose and accordingly it has been leased in favour of respondent No.7 for mining. The appellants – original petitioners, who are unsuccessful in getting the land in question on lease for mining, had approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition submitting that the land, which had been once acquired for the purpose providing house sites, should not have been put to any other use and should have been disposed of either by auction or should have been used for another public purpose, but, in any case, the Government authorities should not have leased the same for mining. We are not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the petition. The State has not disposed of the land. It has been only given for the purpose of mining as per the prescribed procedure under A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. In our opinion, simply because the appellants did not get the land in question for mining purpose, they had approached this Court by filing the aforestated petition. We do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal stands disposed of as dismissed with no order as to costs. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Appeal, W.A.M.P. No.2630 of 2009, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is dismissed as infructuous. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28.10.2009 bnr