THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.663 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner states that she purchased Ac.3.40 cents of land in Sy.No.303 of Palkur Village, Banaganapalli Mandal, Kurnool District, from one Sri K. Chinna Rama Subba Reddy, through sale deed dated 28-06-2003. On an application submitted by the petitioner, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool, granted lease to quarry lime stone black over an extent of one hectare, i.e. 2 ½ acres, for a period of ten years, vide proceedings dated 20-10-2001. The respondent issued proceedings dated 06-01-2010 to the petitioner, requiring her to attend the negotiations, which were scheduled to take place on 11-01-2010. The petitioner submits that she is the absolute owner of the land, and in that view of the matter, the respondent has no jurisdiction to require her to attend the enquiry, or negotiations. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. Before the present writ petition is filed, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.5574 of 2009, claiming rights in respect of the very land, referred to above. The grievance pointed out in that writ petition is, about refusal by the Registering Authority to entertain the documents, for transfer of the land. Through a separate order, this Court dismissed that writ petition, taking note of the fact that the land was notified as Wakf property. It is in that context, that the impugned intimation was given. The record also discloses that notices were issued to the petitioner under Section 52 of the Wakf Act. When the petitioner realized that the land purchased by her belongs to Wakf, she has filed a representation, offering to surrender the land, and made a request to grant lease of the same. Having submitted a representation to the respondent, with a request to lease the land, in her favour, the petitioner cannot object to the proposed negotiations. As a matter of fact, it is her interest, that any negotiations are held. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the representation made by her to the respondent, for lease of the land, afresh. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.25-01-2010. KO