( 1 ) ALL the Counsels agreed to dispose of the main writ petitions itself. As the points involved in both the writ petitions, are one and the same, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. W. P. No. 16733 of 1996

( 2 ) THIS writ petition is filed by M/s. Choice enterprises challenging the impugned proceedingsno. 18915/k295,dated 9-8-1996 of the 1 st respondent directing fresh survey and demarcation in a particular manner and grant of over lapping area in favour of the M/s. Tirumala Granites (4th respondent) and consequently, directing the 3rd respondent to execute the lease deed and issue work order in accordance with law i. e. , survey conducted and consented to by the petitioner M/s. Choice Enterprises on 1-8-1995 with regard to its quarry lease application dated26-6-1995.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-firm has applied for grant of quarry lease to the 1 st respondent for extraction of cut or dressed blocks of black granite in an extent of 2,000 hectares in survey number gap area of Kottalam village, Yadamari mandal Chittoor District for a period of 15 years. The petitioner has complied with all the statutory requirements. The 2nd respondent has invited the petitioner for inspection, survey and demarcation of the applied area on 1-8-1995. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent requested the Mandal revenue Officer, Yadamari mandal to send a report on the category and availability of the area and no objection certificate along with the details of land assessment and extracts of Adangal 10 (1), R. S. R. etc. The mandal Revenue Officer, Yadamari vide letter dated 10-12-1995 furnished the required details and granted no objection certificate together with a certified sketch indicating the are a applied for mining purpose in favour of the petitioner. It is learnt that in pursuance ofsuch information furnished by the Mandal revenue Officer, the 2nd respondent recommended the application ofthe petitioner on 12-12-1995 to the 1 st respondent. 3 (A ). It is further stated that coming to know certain developments, the petitioner- firm was constrained to issue telegraphic notices to the 2nd respondent, District collector, Jointcollector, Revenue Divisional officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer, yadamari mandal, Chittoor District followed by a petition dated 10-1 -1996 addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor with a prayer to call for the records, examine the matter and cancel the No-objection certificate issued to M/s. Tirumala Granites by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Yadamari. On the very same day, the Revenue Divisional officer, Chittoor deferred the letter dated 16-12-1995 issued by the Mandal revenue Officer, Yadamari mandal in favourof M/s. Tirumala Granites (R-4) and further directed the Deputy Inspector of survey of his office to personally inspectthe site and submit a report. The Deputy inspector ofthe Revenue Divisional Office, chittoor inspected the site i. e. , the applied area and submitted a report after verifying the area situated in the gap area of Patrapalli and Kottalam villages based on the old survey marks existing on ground at site. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Yadamari mandal vide proceedings dated 29-1-1996 issued revised no objection certificate in favour of the petitioner-firm duly indicating that the said area lies within the limits of patrapalli Revenue village and that the petitioner-firm and the 4th respondent-firm haveapplied for the same area. Subsequently, on 26-2-1996, the petitioner-firm filed a petition before the 1st respondent to the effect that the area applied by it and the 4th respondent, is one and the same falls within gap area of Patrapalli village panchayat limits. The petitioner also requested to treat its application dated 26-6-1995 as an application made for grant of lease for black granite in an extent of 2,000 hectares gap area ofpatrapalli village, Yadamari mandal, chittoor District instead of gap area o