1 APHC010292262016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 19531/2016 Between: B.chandra Sekhar Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M B THIMMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VARDHINENI KRISHNAMOHAN 2. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP) 3. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) 4. V S N SARMA The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: 2 “…..declaring the action of the respondents 3 to 5 in not deleting the name of the 5th respondent is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and cancel the prospective licence deeds in favour of 5th respondent executed by the 3rd respondents in the office of the 4th respondent (Sub-Registrar, Owk), in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders…..” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioners were in absolute possession and enjoyment of the agricultural lands in Perusomula Village, Sanjamala Mandal, Kurnool District, since long time. While so, during the year 2008, the 5th respondent company made a request for consent of the subject lands along with some other lands in Perusomula Village and surrounding villages, totaling to an extent of 1699.457 hectares (Ac.4197.66 cents) in Sy.No.207 onwards etc., and the 1st respondent granted prospective licence in favour of the 5th respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.116 Industries and Commerce (M-I), dated 18.11.2010. Further, the 5th respondent company made an application to the 3rd respondent for renewal of prospecting licence for further period of three years and the 1st respondent granted prospecting licence and issued G.O.Ms.No.136, dated 19.11.2013 for a period of three years. The petitioners obtained encumbrance certificates from the 4th respondent office and in the column of ownership, the name of the 5th respondent is reflected. When the petitioners approached the bankers and primary agriculture cooperative societies for loans, they refused to grant loans as the ownership is not reflected their names. Mere granting of prospective licence in favour of the 5th respondent by the 1st and 3rd respondents and entering of registered lease deed with the 5th respondent, does not confer any 3 surface rights over the petitioners’ lands, unless the lands were acquired by them. Subsequently, basing on the petitioners’ request, the 3rd respondent issued instructions vide L.R.No.1260/M4/2002, dated 19.11.2014, but the 4th respondent has not deleted the name of the 5th respondent company in the ownership column in the encumbrance certificate. Hence the present writ petition is filed. 3. On the other hand, the 4th respondent filed counter. While denying the contents of the writ petition, he stated that, the 5th respondent company got entered into a lease deed bearing No.330/2014 with the 3rd respondent at the 4th respondent Sub-Registrar’s Office, Owk relating to the subject lands along with some other lands in surrounding villages of Sanjamala Mandal, Kurnool District. Later, the said lease deed was cancelled by the lessor and lessee through document No.740/2014 at 4th respondent’s office. The cancellation of lease deed reflected in the encumbrance certificate, which contains all transactions affected in the subject lands. As such, the petitioners’ claim regarding the subject lands with the 5th respondent does not arise. Hence, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, appearing for the 4th respondent. 4 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter is squarely covered by the common order passed by the composite High Court in W.P.Nos.7828 of 2014 and batch, dated 09.06.2014, and hence, requests this Court to pass similar order in this petition also. The operative portion of the said order is as follows:- “In view of the detailed interim order passed by this Court on 01.04.2014 in this batch of cases, the necessary cancellation deeds have been executed by the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology and the company officials. Therefore, the apprehension entertained by the writ petitioners has been put at rest. In that view of the matter, the suggestion made on behalf of the learned counsel for M/s Reliance Cement Company Private Limited that no further orders are needed to be passed in these cases, appears to be acceptable. In view of execution of the cancellation deeds, no further orders are needed to be passed in these cases. Hence, while reiterating the order passed by this Court at the interlocutory stage on 01.04.2014, all these Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No costs.” 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration do not refute the said submission. 7. In view of the submission made by both learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material available on record, this Court deems fit to dispose of the present Writ Petition in terms of the said common order. 5 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the common order passed in W.P.Nos.7828 of 2014 and batch, dated 09.06.2014. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. The Registry is directed to attach a copy of the common order passed in W.P.Nos.7828 of 2014 and batch, dated 09.06.2014, to this order. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date: 20.01.2025 ARR 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.19531 of 2016 Date : 20.01.2025 ARR