The court ruled that ownership disputes over land must be resolved in civil courts, not through administrative processes, emphasizing the illegality of the quarry lease granted without proper verification.

ORDER :

K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.

2. WP Nos.30796 and 32242 of 2014 have been filed seeking to quash the Memo No.25528/M.I(1)/2001-2021 dated 27.8.2015 and to set aside the quarry lease granted by the 2^nd respondent in favour of M/s Golden Granites (4^th respondent in WP No.30796/2014 and 6^th respondent in WP No.32252/2014), dated 12.11.2001 vide proceedings No.34354/R3(2)/2001.

3. Whereas, WP No.30172 of 2022 has been filed seeking to declare the action of the 4^th respondent -District Collector in issuing Rc No.E1/41/2021, dated 12.10.2021 and consequential order of 2^nd respondent- DMG proceedings No.742/D9/2022, dated 17.8.2022 renewing the mining lease in favour of 7^th respondent in Sy No.55/6 of R.L Puram village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Praksam district, without verifying the veracity of NOC issued by the MRO and not waiting for report having called for the same on4.8.2022, as illegal and arbitrary.

4. Since the facts in all the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.30796 of 2014 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience.

5. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a registered Firm engaged in mining activities. The present writ petition is filed questioning the order of the 1^strespondent in Memo No.25128/M.1(1)/2001-2021 dated 27.8.2014 whereby the Revision Petition has been dismissed against the petitioner herein. It is stated that the 4^th respondent herein has been granted with a prospecting license over an extent of 6.78 acres in Sy.No.55/6 of the R.L.Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District by the 2^nd respondent on 29.8.2001 and later on a quarry lease was also granted on 12.11.2001 for a period of 20 years. These proceedings have been questioned by the petitioner herein by way of a Revision under Rule 35A of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short “APMMC Rules”) on various grounds, but the 1^strespondent has summarily dismissed the same under the impugned order. Hence this writ petition

6. The main crux of the case is that, several lands of vast extents situated in different villages like R.L.Puram and Chimakurthy were belonging to Telekepally family. There was a suit filed in O.S.No.183/1932 in the court of District Munsiff, Ongole, for partition by RamaswamySarma, S/o.Purushottam against his father and other sharers. A compromise decree was passed on 17.12.1937 and the shares were allotted to different groups of the family thereunder. The Survey No.55/6 of R.L.Puram was having 45.90 acres and this devolved upon 7 joint pattadars and one of them is Telekepally PedaKrishnaiah, who got 7 /12^th undivided share amounting to 9.85 acres. His daughter-in-law and grandchildren have executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner dated 17.12.2005 for an extent of 3.36 acres in Sy.No.55/6 out of their share of 6.78 acres and since then the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The 4^th respondent herein claims to be the owner of the said land. They claim that Manduva SrinivasRao has purchased 10.01 acres of land from the said Arundhatamma on 20.1.1992 and he sold the same under two sale deeds of 3.00 acres and 3.78 acres to Sai Enterprises and to Manduva Ram Babu respectively. It is further stated that the 4^threspondent partnership Firm was formed on 23.5.2000 and its registration Number is 52/2000. It applied for a prospecting license in respect of the 6.78 acres of land in Sy.No.55/6 on 25.5.2000. The M.R.O, Chimakurthy issued NOC on 18.3.2000 in favour of 4^threspondent and basing on that the 2^ndrespondent issued a prospecting license on 29.8.2001 for a period of 2 years. Thereafter, the 4^threspondent filed an application for conversion of prospecting license into quarry lease on 12.10.2001 and the same was granted by the 2^nd respondent on 12.11.2001 for a p