ORDER :

Kiranmayee Mandava, J.

Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Ginjupalli Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the respondent No.11, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5, learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce appearing for the respondent No.2, Sri Gnani Vivek Karra, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and Smt. Santhi Chandra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.9 (APIIC).

2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present case is against the action of the respondents in granting a mining lease in favour of the unofficial respondent No.6 in respect of land that had already been sold to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that it purchased the subject land from Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) under three separate registered sale deeds executed in the year 2009 for valid consideration, for the purpose of establishing a Multi-Product Special Economic Zone (SEZ).

3. Subsequently, by Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 09.11.2023, the petitioner was permitted to change its line of activity from a Multi-Product SEZ to a Multi-Product Industrial Park, as the land parcel allotted to the petitioner was not contiguous, which is a mandatory precondition for establishment of a Multi-Product SEZ. Pursuant thereto, sale deeds had already been executed in favour of the petitioner by the Corporation.

4. However, the 4^th respondent, by proceedings dated 10.10.2023, granted a mining lease in favour of the 6^th respondent for a period of 20 years in respect of the very same land that had been sold to the petitioner in 2009. Under the guise of the said mining lease, the 6^th respondent has begun making arrangements to carry out mining operations.

5. It is contended that the official respondents have no authority or jurisdiction to grant a mining lease in respect of the subject land, as the Corporation (APIIC) had already transferred ownership of the subject land to the petitioner through registered sale deeds executed.

6. The 11^th respondent who had subsequently stepped into the shoes of the 6^th respondent by virtue of the proceedings of transfer of mining lease in its favour, filed a counter-affidavit stating that the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.254 dated 17.06.2002, granted a prospecting license in favour of the 6^th respondent to undertake prospecting operations for silica sand over an extent of Ac.100.00 cents in Survey No.107 for a period of 20 years. The prospecting license was executed on 04.01.2003 pursuant to the proceedings of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology (ADMG).

7. After completion of prospecting operations, the 6^th respondent applied on 06.09.2003 for the grant of a mining lease for silica sand over an extent of Ac.80.72 cents. The ADMG inspected the area with the Revenue Surveyor on 04.05.2005. Upon inspection, it was found that, out of the prospecting license area of Ac.100.00 cents, only an extent of Ac.80.72 was available for the grant of a mining lease. The 6^th respondent was accordingly directed to submit consent for the reduced extent.

8. Upon receipt of consent from the 6^th respondent, the ADMG, vide proceedings dated 29.06.2005, granted a mining lease in favour of the 6^th respondent over an extent of Ac.80.72 cents for a period of 20 years.

9. Thereafter, the Director of Mines and Geology (DMG), vide proceedings dated 20.01.2006, forwarded proposals to the Government for grant of quarry lease for 20 years in favour of the 6^th respondent. The Government, vide Memo No.923/M.I(2)/2006-1, dated 01.11.2006 accorded preliminary approval for grant of quarry lease. Subsequently, vide proceedings dated 12.10.2010, the Government agreed to grant mining lease in favour of the 6^th respondent over an extent of Ac.80.72 in Survey No.107 and directed the 6^th respondent to submit an Approved Mining Plan, Environmental Clearance, and Consent