Point of law: Respondent authorities rightly rejected petitioner’s representation and considered his application only in respect of those lands and survey numbers mentioned in Form-P statutory application. As rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader, there is no enabling provision in APMMC Rules, 1966 for carrying out amendments to the lease application, particularly in respect of the properties sought for lease. It is rightly because each application has to be disposed of by the Director in the order of their receipt.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is common in both these writ petitions. In W.P. No. 11474 of 2021 the petitioner challenges the proceedings vide D. Dis. Procd. No. 6761/D9/2020, dated 01.06.2021 of the 3rd respondent rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of quarry lease for colour granite for an extent of 5.000 Hectares in Sy. No. 871, 872 to 875, 877, 934/29 of Konidena Village, Ballikuruva Mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal and for a consequential direction to set aside the impugned proceedings and for a direction to 3rd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease for aforesaid property.

In W.P. No. 11505 of 2021 the petitioner impugns the order in Notice No. 6203/D9/2020, dated 02.06.2021 passed by the 3rd respondent accepting the proposals of the Assistant Director of Mines - the 5th respondent in principle to grant quarry lease for colour granite in an extent of Ac. 9.15 cents (3.703 Hectares) in Sy. No. 871/1 (0.43 Acres), 871/2 (0.74 Acres), 871/3 (0.69 Acres), 871/4 (0.80 Acres), 871/5 (0.79 Acres), 871/6 (0.98 Acres), 871/7 (1.00 Acres), 871/8 (0.77 Acres), 871/9 (0.95 Acres), 871/10 (1.00 Acres) and 871/11 (1.00 Acres) of Konidena Village, Ballikuruva Mandal, Prakasam District in favour of the 8th respondent, as illegal and for consequential direction to set aside the same.

2. The factual matrix of the case is thus:

The petitioner submitted application on 20.11.2012 to the 5th respondent for grant of steel gray granite over an extent of 6.000 Hectares in Konidena Village, Ballikuruva Mandal, Prakasam District in Sy. Nos. 871, 872 to 875, 877, 934/28 and 934/29 along with sketch showing Sy. Nos. 871, 872 to 875, 934/28 and 934/29. In the Statutory Column IX of the application the petitioner clearly mentioned that the applied areas were mentioned in the sketch and the application was acknowledged by the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent sent letters and instructed petitioner to attend inspection to be held on 23.08.2014. On 23.08.2014 vide Letter No. CSK/KKP/F/D No. 331/2014 the petitioner informed that he attended office but due to non-availability of the concerned officer, the petitioner could not attend survey and inspection and another opportunity may be given to him to attend survey and inspection:

(a) Further case of the petitioner is that due to clerical mistake, the survey number 871 was not mentioned in the Statutory Column of the application, however, the same was marked and written as Sy. No. 871 along with Sy. Nos. 872 to 875, 877, 934/28 and 934/29 in the sketch that was prepared. Representations dated 17.12.2014, 20.12.2014 and 21.02.2015 were submitted by the petitioner to 5th respondent to accept and add the survey number 871 as per law. Subsequently, an application was filed before the 5th respondent for grant of quarry lease in Sy. No. 934/29 for an extent of 5.000 Hectares and the 7th respondent had issued NOC for 2.5 Hectares and the same was forwarded to RDO, DFO and 5th respondent and the District Collector, Ongole.

(b) Thereafter, the 7th respondent in his proceedings Rc.A.33/2015 informed the 5th respondent that in respect of the petitioner’s application for quarry lease, the verification was done in Sy. No. 934/28, 934//29, 872 to 875 and 877 of Konidena Village of Ballikurava Mandal on 20.10.2016 and the application was rejected as the said lands are not vacant. In the said letter the respondents deliberately ignored to mention survey number 871 in spite of the numerous representations submitted by the petitioner earlier. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent vide his Proceedings No. 18747/R3-2/2016, dated 07.07.2017, informed the petitioner that his request for quarry lease for an extent of 5.000 hectares in Sy. No. 872 to 875 of Konedena Village, Ballikurva Mandal, Prakasam District was rejected. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the revision and same was rejected on the ground that the revision was filed with a delay of 5 months and 15 days. Against th