The court ruled that claims over estate lands must be substantiated by evidence of continuous occupation before a specified date, and mining leases granted during disputes are valid.

ORDER :

K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

As the issue involved in both the 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. Since the facts in both the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.18094 of 2023 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is one of the family member of Aduru Estate holders. Some of the members of Aduru family filed a suit for partition of the schedule lands (estate lands) on the file of Subordinate Judge, Nellore and a preliminary decree was passed on 19.12.1951. After the Estate Abolition Act , 1956 came in to force, the petitioners family members filed claims before the 4th respondent and the said claim petitions were ordered. Aggrieved by the same, an Appeal No. 27 of 1970 was filed before Estate Abolition Appellate Tribunal, wherein vide judgment dated 13.12.1971 orders of Settlement Officer was set aside by remanding the matter. It is stated that the 4th respondent vide order dated 07.02.2009 passed orders that family members are entitled for the patta only to the extent of Ac. 88.41 cents and remaining land is mining poramboke though such power is not vested with the settlement officer to declare the estate land as mining poramboke. Aggrieved by the said orders CMA No. 19/2009, СМА 27/2009 and CMA 29/2009 were filed before the Estate Abolition Appellate-cum-Principal District Judge, Nellore and PrincipalDistrict Judge remanded the matter to the settlement officer by order dated 28.04.2012. Again 4th respondent Settlement Officer has passed orders on 02.09.2016 treating only Ac.88.41 cents as patta land and rejected patta for remaining extent of Ac. 147.69 cents. Aggrieved by the said order, some of the family members filed CMA No.11 of 2016 wherein, the petitioner has shown as objector respondent.

4. Pending disposal of the above CMA.11 of 2016 before the Principal District Judge, Nellore, when 5th respondent and others were trying to obtain mining lease to the joint family lands which are declared as mining porambokes with false NOC's and other documents, one of the family member of the petitioners’ daughter AvulaVijayamma was filed W.P.No.5985 of 2021 before this Hon'ble Court seeking directions to the respondents 1 to 3 herein not to issue mining lease in favour of the unofficial respondents. This Hon'ble court vide order dated. 11.02.2022 has granted interim direction, not to grant mining lease in respect of the subject lands till the disposal of CMA 11 of 2016. Thereafter, the said CMA No.11 of 2016 was disposed of vide judgment dated 13.12.2021 again remanding the matter to the 4th respondent Settlement Officer. As the orders in W.P.No.5985/2021 by the Hon'ble High court are till the disposal of the appeal, though the matter was remanded back, taking advantage of the orders in C.M.A.No.11/2016, when the respondents 5 and 6 are making hectic efforts for obtaining mining leases, the petitioner was constrain to file W.P.No.16433/2022 to restrain the respondents 2 and 3 from granting mining lease to the respondents 5 and 6 with respect to subject lands pending disposal of the matter before 4th respondent Joint Collector- cum Settlement Officer. The said writ petition in W.P.No.16433/2022 was disposed of vide Orders dated 20.09.2022 Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondents 5 and 6 filed Writ Appeal No.755/2022, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, vide Judgment dt.13.10.2022. Pursuant to the Orders passedn C.M.A.No.11/2016, dt.13.12.2021, the 4th respondent passed Orders in S.R.No.1,12,13,15,15 (1)/1967, dt.24.02.2023 holding that the pos