( 1 ) AS similar questions of fact and law arise in these three writ petitions, they are considered and disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) IN all these cases, the petitioners specifically seek a quarry lease in respect of different extents of lands in Survey Nos. 55/3a, 55/3c and 55/3 of R. L. Puram village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasham District.

( 3 ) THE minerals in respect of which quarry lease is sought is Black Granite" of a category commercially known as Galaxy, which now has a lucrative market both abroad and in India. The individual facts in these writ petitions may be set out briefly as under : w. P. No. 20609 of 2000 :

( 4 ) THE petitioner seeks restoration of the mining lease granted to him by the lease deed dated 18-6-1990 for a period of 5 years from the date of restoration, in respect of Ac. 1. 98 cts in Sy. No. 55/3c of R. L. Puram village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasham District.

( 5 ) ON 24-3-1990 the petitioner was granted permission by the 3rd respondent for removing boulder stones in the area of Ac. 1. 98 cts. Thereupon the petitioner applied for a mining lease in respect of the said area. The Director of Mines and Geology by an order dated 14-5-90 granted quarry lease of black granite over the area and subject to certain conditions imposed by the 3rd respondent. Consequently the 2nd respondent granted lease by proceedings dated 5-6-90 for a period of 5 years. A lease deed dated 18-6-90 was executed. Thereafter the 3rd respondent cancelled the permission earlier granted without notice and opportunity to the petitioner. Challenging the same writ petition 6411/91 was filed. This writ petition was allowed on 22. 4192 on the ground that the cancellation was without notice and opportunity.

( 6 ) THE 3rd respondent thereupon issued a show cause notice dated 20-6-92 proposing cancellation of the permission granted on 24-3-90 for the various reasons stated therein including that the entire area of land including the land granted to the petitioner is required for the farm operations and mining activity would be detrimental to the live stock. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 11-7-92. The 3rd respondent cancelled the permission granted by the order dated 27-9-92. Consequently the 2nd respondent cancelled the mining lease by the order dated. 29-9-92. Thereafter respondents 3 and 4 made the entire area of about Ac. 60 in Sy. Nos. 55/3a, 55/3c and 55/5 available for grant of mining lease and the 5th respondent purchased the said land and obtained mining lease for the entire area, vide proceedings dated 5-8-2000 issued by the 3rd respondent.

( 7 ) CONTENDING that the land in respect of which lease was granted to the petitioner in 1990 was cancelled only on account of the fact that the land was required for the purposes of sheep breeding farm and that as the land has now been decided to be put to mining use, the earlier reason for cancellation of the petitioner s lease no longer subsisting, it is entitled to restoration of the lease on the application of the principle of feeding the grant by estoppel, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the relief set out.

( 8 ) THE petitioner places reliance on Rojasara Ramjibhai Dahyabhai v. Jani Narottamdas Lallubhai AIR 1986 SC 1912 in respect of the relief sought. The law declared in the said judgment has no relevance to the facts of the petitioner s case. In Dahyabai s case the appellant defendant entered into an agreement with the respondent-plaintiff to sell a property to the respondents. At the time of agreement the appellant had an imperfect title which disabled him from effectuating the sale. Subsequently on operation of the Sourashtra Land Reforms Act 1951, the appellant came to be recognised as an occupant under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1898, and was granted an occupancy certificate. After due permission granted by the Revenue Authorities, the land was converted from agricultural land to village site, thus capable of