Point of Law: writ petition is not maintainable as an alternative and efficacious relief is available to the petitioner under Rule 35/35-A of the APMMC Rules, 2016.

ORDER :

The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in proposing to issue Mining lease in favour of the 4th respondent in the lands in Sy.Nos.10, 49, 56/1 and 39 admeasuring Ac.7.73 cents , Ac.6.84 cents, Ac.9.38 cents and Ac.10.07 cents totaling to Ac.34.02 cents situated at Jogipalli Village of Sydapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District in spite of the legal notice dated 31.07.2020 issued by the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to respondent authorities.

2. The petitioner’s case succinctly is thus:

(a) The petitioner filed C.M.A.No.11 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nellore (Estate Abolition Appellate Tribunal, Nellore) against the orders passed by the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, SPSR Nellore District. During the pendency of the civil disputes, the 4th respondent, Vigneswara Minerals and some others have made application before the Tahsildar, Sydapuram Mandal for issuance of NOC in respect of subject lands covered under C.M.A.No.11 of 2015. The Tahsildar, Sydapuram knowing fully well about the issue of the civil dispute, issued NOC with false report and recommended to the 3rd respondent for grant of mining lease for Mica, Quartz and Feldspar.

(b) In turn, the 3rd respondent without verification and conducting enquiry into the correctness of the NOC issued by the Tahsildar, forwarded the mining lease proposals to the 2nd respondent and the issue is pending before the 2nd respondent. Since the subject lands are under dispute before the competent Civil Court, it is not just on the respondent authorities to issue mining lease in favour of the 4th respondent and others, for it will lead to multiplicity of the proceedings. The petitioner coming to know that the 2nd respondent is likely to issue orders of mining lease in favour of the above mentioned firms, in which case the civil appeal will be otiose, issued legal notice dated 31.07.2019 to the respondent authorities calling upon them not to grant any mining lease either in favour of the 4th respondent or anybody. Despite the same, the respondent authorities are making hectic efforts to issue mining lease in favour of the 4th respondent and others. Hence, the writ petition.

3. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed counter with the following averments:

(a) The 4th respondent filed two applications for grant of quarry lease for Mica, Quartz and Feldspar over an extent of Ac.6.84 Cents in Sy.No.49 and Ac.9.38 cents in Sy.No.56/1 of Jogipalli Village, Sydapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District for 20 years and another application was filed by M/s. Vigneswara Minerals, Managing Partner Sri A.Srinivasulu for Ac.12.32 cents in Sy.No.39 of Jogipalli Village on 03.07.2017 and 06.01.2018 respectively and the 3rd respondent requested the Tahsildar, Sydapuram to furnish report on the classification and availability of land for grant of lease in respect of three applications.

(b) The Tahsildar, Sydapuram vide letter Rc.B.394/2017 dated 25.11.2017 reported that the total extent of Sy.No.49 is Ac.6.84 cents which was entered in favour of one Aduru Vengaiah as per fair adangal register. But the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Nellore vide S.R.No.1, 12, 13, 15, 15(1)/67 dated 02.09.2016 passed the order treating the classification of the land in Sy.No.49 of Ac.6.84 cents as Mining Poramboke Land. It is submitted that the land is a vacant on ground, there are no valuable trees or permanent structures or electrical or telephone lines in the land applied for by the applicant. There are no residential habitations within the radius of two kilometers from the land in question. There are mining pits in the land applied for. A1 notice has been published in the village and no objections were received for grant of mining lease. Therefore, there was no objection for Sy.No.49 of Jogipalli Village to be proposed for mining lease.

(c) Similar is the case with the land in extent of Ac.9.38 cents in Sy.No.56-1 of Jo