ORDER:

The case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner is a family member of Aduru estate holders, which was abolished under the Estate Abolition Act, 1956. A suit had been filed by some members of this family for partition of the estate lands and a preliminary decree was passed on 19.12.1951. The lands which were the subject matter of the preliminary decree dated 19.12.1951 included the lands on which respondents 2 and 3 are said to be proposing to issue mining leases in favour of respondents 5 and 6. On account of the Estate Abolition Act, 1956, the family members had filed claims before the 4th respondent-Settlement Officer in the year 1970, which passed an order on 30.05.1970. Aggrieved by the said order Appeal No.27 of 1970 was filed before the Estate Abolition Appellate Tribunal, which remanded the matter back, by order dated 13.12.1971. The 4th respondent again passed an order dated 07.02.2009 rejecting the claim of the petitioner over certain bits of land on the ground that they were mining poramboke lands, on which the petitioners would not have any right. This order was challenged by way of C.M.A.Nos.19, 27 and 29 of 2009 on the file of the Estate Abolition Appellate cum Principal District Judge, Nellore, who remanded the matter again, by order dated 28.04.2012.

2. The 4th respondent-Settlement Officer passed fresh orders on 02.09.2016, essentially, reiterating the order dated 07.02.2009. Aggrieved by this order, C.M.A.No.11 of 2016 came to be filed before the Principal District Judge, Nellore. At that stage, even while C.M.A.No.11 of 2016 was pending, the 5th respondent and others are said to have taken steps for obtaining mining leases over the land, which was declared as mining poramboke. Aggrieved by this action, one of the family members had filed W.P.No.5985 of 2021 before this Court, which was disposed of by an order dated 11.02.2022, directing the respondents not to grant any mining leases in respect of the said lands till the disposal of C.M.A.No.11 of 2016. After this direction, the Principal District Judge, Nellore, by order dated 13.12.2021, in C.M.A.No.11 of 2016, had again remanded the matter back to the 4th respondent-settlement officer and the matter is presently pending before the 4th respondent-settlement officer.

3. The directions of this Hon’ble Court, in W.P.No.5985 of 2021 prohibited grant of mining leases during the pendency of the appeal before the Principal District Judge, Nellore. The respondents are now taking steps for grant of mining lease to respondents 5 and 6 on the ground that C.M.A.No.11 of 2016 has already been disposed of and there are no further orders prohibiting grant of mining leases.

4. The petitioners have now approached this court with the contention that the action of respondents 2 and 3 in proposing to issue mining leases in favour of respondents 5 and 6 for the lands described in Ex.P1 of this writ petition, even when the matter is subjudice before the 4th respondent, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently respondents 2 and 3 should be prohibited from granting any mining lease, pending the said litigation.

5. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit stating that as C.M.A.No.11 of 2016 had been disposed of, the director of Mines and Geology vide proceedings No.1457/D8/2020, dated 22.06.2022 had granted a quarry lease for Mica, Qartz & Feldspar over an extent of 1.174 hectares in Sy.No.49/P of Jogipalli Village, Sydapuram Manal, SPSR Nellore District, for a period of 20 years in favour of the 5th respondent and another quarry lease for the same minerals over an extent of 3.220 hectares in Sy.No.39/P of the same village for a period of 20 years in favour of M/s. Vigneswara Minerals, in which the 6th respondent is the managing partner, vide proceedings No.1458/D8/2020, dated 22.06.2022. It is further stated that on account of the interim directions granted by this Court on 20.06.2022, which was received on 30.06.2022, the lease deed had not yet been executed.