ORAL JUDGMENT

Dt: 13.10.2022 (per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 20.09.2022 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court disposing of W.P.No.16433 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1 herein with a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein (State and mining authorities) not to take any further steps for execution of lease deed in favour of respondent No.5 therein (appellant No.1 herein) and the firm in which respondent No.6 (appellant No.2 herein) is a Managing Partner, till the dispute relating to the said lease is disposed of finally.

2. The relevant facts, which gave rise to the filing of the aforesaid writ petition, are as follows: The writ petitioner claims to be a member of the family of Aduru estate holders. In a suit filed by some members of the said family for partition of the estate lands, a preliminary decree dated 19.12.1951 was passed. Subsequently, on account of the Estate Abolition Act, 1956, the family members had filed claims before the Settlement Officer in the year 1970 and the Settlement Officer passed an order dated 30.05.1970. Aggrieved by the said order, Appeal No.27 of 1970 came to be filed before the Estate Abolition Appellate Tribunal, which remanded the matter back to the Settlement Officer, vide order dated 13.12.1971. Thereafter, the Settlement Officer has again passed order dated 07.02.2009 rejecting the claim of the claimants in respect of certain pieces of land on the ground that they were mining poramboke lands. The said order was challenged by preferring C.M.A.Nos.19, 27 and 29 of 2009 on the file of the Estate Abolition Appellate Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nellore, and again, by order dated 28.04.2012 passed in the said C.M.As, the matter has been remanded back. Thereafter, the Settlement Officer passed orders on 02.09.2016, against which, C.M.A.No.11 of 2016 was filed before the Principal District Judge, Nellore. During pendency of the said C.M.A., contending that the appellants were trying to obtain mining lease over the lands declared as mining poramboke despite pendency of C.M.A., one of the family members of the estate holders filed W.P.No.5985 of 2021 before this Court. While disposing of the said writ petition by order dated 11.02.2022, this Court has issued a direction to the authorities not to grant mining lease in respect of the subject lands to anybody till the disposal of C.M.A.No.11 of 2016. While so, by order dated 13.12.2021 passed in C.M.A.No.11 of 2016, the matter was again remanded back to the Settlement Officer and the matter is presently pending before the Settlement Officer. At this stage, the present writ petition has been filed contending that the authorities were proposing to issue mining lease in favour of the appellants in respect of the subject lands even though the matter is pending before the Settlement Officer.

3. The learned single Judge opined that disposal of C.M.A.No.11 of 2016 remanding the matter back to the Settlement Officer does not, in any manner, affect the observation of this Court in the order passed in W.P.No.5985 of 2021 and accordingly, since the dispute is still pending, issued the impugned direction restraining the authorities from taking further steps for execution of lease deed, as already noted above.

4. Admittedly, consequent upon remand of the matter, the issue as to whether the subject lands are mining poramboke or the members of family of the estate holders are entitled for grant of ryotwari patta in respect of the said lands, is presently pending consideration before the Settlement Officer. This being the position and in the backdrop of the factual matrix of the matter, as discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge is wholly justified in directing the authorities not to take any further steps for execution of lease deed in respect of the lands in question till the dispute is disposed of finally. Having considered the rival submissions made by t