The court affirmed that the disputed mining area is classified as Revenue land, not Reserve Forest, necessitating a joint survey to resolve land classification disputes.

Order:

K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“…..to issue an order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the Proceedings Rc.No.2171/2017/TO(1), dated 5.1.2018 issued by the 7^th respondent and the consequential Proceedings in Ref.No.11117/2017/WLR-1, dated 18.1.2018 issued by the 6^th respondent and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 2, 3, 6 to 9 herein to permit the petitioner to conduct the Mining Operations in respect of the mining lease granted for Calcite and Mica over an extent of Ac.6.44 hectares in Survey No.4 of Kudia Village, Anahtagiri Mandal, Visakhapatnam, in pursuance of the Proceedings issued by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam vide Proceedings 4519/M/2002, dated 15.11.2002 and also as per the orders issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Guntur in Proceedings in Ref.No.11117/2017/WLR-1, dated 22.12.2017, if necessary, by duly conducting a Joint Survey by the Revenue, Forest, Survey and Mining Departments in respect of the above said leased area and submit a report…….”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for grant of Mining lease to an extent of 6.44 hectares in Survey No.4 of Kudia Village, Ananthagiri Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, in respect of Mineral Calcite and Mica and considering the same, the State of Andhra Pradesh, granted the Mining Lease, vide G.O.Ms.No.398, Industries Department & Commerce (Mines-III) Department. The 3^rd respondent issued work orders in his proceedings, permitting the petitioner to commerce the Mining Lease operations as per the provisions of Minor Mineral Concession Rules and other conditions. While so, one Naveena Educated Empower Development Samithi, made a complaint that the leased area and the mining operations are undertaken in a Forest Notified Area. Based upon the said complaint, the Forest Officials, without passing any orders of whatsoever, orally instructing us, not to take up the mining operations in the leased area. Hence, the petitioner made representation to the 7^th respondent i.e., Chief Conservator of Forests, Visakhapatnam, requesting to issue necessary directions to the concerned Forest Officials not to cause hindrance, obstructions, in execution of mining operations in leased area, which is a patta land and falls in the Revenue area of the village. Since no action has been taken, the petitioner made representation to the 6^th respondent i.e., Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. The 6^th respondent directed the 8^th respondent i.e., Divisional Forest Officer, Visakhapatnam to rectify the Village boundary and the Forest boundary, by conducting a joint field survey with reference to the concerned record and file a report, by 15.10.2017. Thereafter, the 8^th respondent vide his proceedings, sent to the 7^th respondent stated that the entire mining area is falling outside the Kudia Revenue Village and within the Pedakota Reserve Land, by observing that the area of Kudia Revenue Village, given by the petitioner, is almost two to three times than the actual area, as per the Revenue Records. The 6^th respondent directed the 7^th respondent to settle issue at his level as the dispute is pending for last several months. However, the Full Additional Charge of the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Guntur wrote a letter to the 4^th respondent i.e., District Collector, Visakhapatnam to prepare a Village Map of Kudia Village, Ananthagiri Mandal, by marking a copy of the same to the Forest Department to settle the issue. The 7^th respondent sent a letter to the 6^th respondent submitting the conclusions arrived by the 8^th respondent, by orders dated 27.10.2017. Therefore, the petitioner made a complaint before the Grievance Cell of the 4^th respondent, seeking that a joint survey to be conducted by the Revenue and Fo