1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE 3 > / ' o A' AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT APPEAL Nos. 220. 221 AND 222 OF 2025 WRIT APPEAL NO: 220 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 21.02.2025 in Writ Petition No.31072 of 2022 on the file of the High Court. Between: M/s. Golden Granites, Ongole Rep. by its Present Managing Partner Mandava Rambabu, D.No.37-1-174/5, 3'^ Floor Addanki Bus Stand, Ongole-523001. Saravana Complex ...Writ Appellant/7*'’Respondent in W.P AND 1. B A S Granites, Rep by its Managing Partner, M.Aswarth Narayana S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged about 64 years, R/o. Madam Compound, Kurnool. ... Respondent/Petitioner in W.P. 2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, (Now the State of Andhra Pradesh) Rep by its Principal Secretary, Industries Commerce Mines Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Guntur District. 3. The Director of Mines and Geology, Office at Sri Anjaneya Towers, Door No.7-104, B-Block Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada. 4. The Asst Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole Prakasam District. 5. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole. 2 r. S. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Prakasam Bhavan, Ongole, Prakasam I District. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Respondents/ Respondent Nos.1 to 6 in W.P. ■ f '■* lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.31072 of 2022 dated 21-02-2025. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI B. ADINARAYANA RAO, Ld. SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI P. KAMLAKAR Counsel for Respondent No.1: SRI K.S. Murthy, Ld. SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI PONNADA SREE VYAS Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 to 7: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT APPEAL NO: 221 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 21.02.2025 in W.P. No 32252 of 2014 on the file of the High Court. Between: M/s. Golden Granites, Ongole Rep. by its Present Managing Partner Mandava Rambabu, D.No.37-1-174/5, 3^'" Floor, Saravana Complex, Addanki Bus Stand, Ongole-523001. ...Writ Appellant/6*^ Respondent in W.P AND 1. Digumarthy Suresh Babu, S/o YanadiRao, aged 45 years, Occ.Business, Kotakatia Street, Near Venkateswara Cinema Hall, Chimakurthy, Prakasam District. ... Respondent/Petitioner in W.P. 2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, (Now the State of Andhra Pradesh) Rep by its Principal Secretary Industries Commerce Mines 3 Department .Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 3. The Director of Mines and Geology, Office at Sri Anjaneya Towers, Door No.7-104, B-Block Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada. 4. The Asst Director of Mines arid Geology, Ongole Prakasam District. 5. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. 6. The District Collector, Prakasam District Ongole. ...Respondents/ Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in W.P. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32252 of 2014 dated 21-02-2025. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI B. ADINARAYANA RAO, Ld. SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI P. KAMLAKAR Counsel for Respondent No.1: SRI PRABHU NATH VASIREDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 & 6; GP FOR REVENUE WRIT APPEAL NO: 222 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 21.02.2025 in W.P. No.30796 of 2014 on the file of the High Court. Between: M/s.Golden Granites, Ongole Rep. by its Present Managing Partner, Mandava Rambabu, D.No.37-1-174/5, Floor, Saravana Complex, Addanki Bus Stand, Ongole-523001 (Present Address) Writ Appellant/4‘'’ Respondent in W.P AND 1. B A S Granites, Rep by Managing Partner M. Aswarth Narayana, Satyanarayana, aged 61 years, R/o Medam Compound, Kurnool. ... Respondent/Petitioner in W.P. S/o 4 r 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries Commerce Mines Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 3. The Director of Mines and Geology, Office at Sri Anjaneya Towers, Door No.7-104, B-Block, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada. 4. The Asst Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole, Prakasam District. ...Respondents/ Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.P lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.30796 of 2014 dated 21-02-2025. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI B. ADINARAYANA RAO, Ld. SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI P. KAMLAKAR Counsel for Respondent No.1: SRI N. NIRMAL KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following; Bench Sr.Nos:- 4 to 6 [3446] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI APHC010128742025 Bp] WRIT APPEAL No: 220 of 2025 ALONG WITH WRIT APPEAL Nos.221 and 222 of 2025 WRIT APPEAL No: 220 of 2025 ...Appellant M/s. Golden Granites Vs. ...Respondents BAS Granites and others ********** Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing vice Mr. P. Kamlakar Mr. K.S.Murthy, Ld. Senior Counsel, appearing vice Mr. Ponnada Sree Vyas - W.A.No.220 of 2025, Mr. Prabhunath Vasi Reddy - W.A.No.221 of 2025, Mr. N. Nirmal Kumar - W.A.No.222 of 2025, GP for Revenue, GP for Mines and Geology Advocate for Appellant: Advocates for Respondents; CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 27"^ March, 2025. PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ: The present set of Writ Appeals has been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 21.02.2025 passed in W.P. Nos. 30796 of 2014, 32252 of 2014, and 31072 of 2022. The appellant herein, M/s. Golden Granites, was arrayed as respondent No.7 in W.P.No.31072 of 2022, as HCJ & RRRJ WA_220_2025 & batch respondent No,4 in W.P.No.30796 of 2014 and as respondent No.6 in W.P.No.32252 of 2014. The principal issue agitated in the writ petitions, and consequently in these appeals, pertains to the legality of the mining lease and its renewal granted in favour of the writ appellant over land in Sy.No.55/6 of R.L.Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. With a view to understand the background in the light of which the present controversy has risen, it is necessary to state briefly the material facts; 2. 2.1. The appellant - M/s. Golden Granites applied for Prospecting License extent of Ac.6.78 cents of land falling under Survey No.55/6 on An N.O.C. from Mandal Revenue Officer, Chimakurthy was issued on 18.03.2000 based upon which the Director of Mines and Geology granted a prospecting license to M/s.Golden Granites on 29.08.2001 for a period of two years. over an 25.05.2000. Subsequently, the Director of Mines and Geology permitted the of the Prospecting License to a quarry lease, which resulted in the issuance of a quarry lease by the Director of Mines and Geology on 12.11.2001 for a period of 20 years. Upon expiry of the initial period of quarry lease granted in favour of the appellant a renewal was sought on 09.11.2020, which was permitted by the Director of Mines and Geology on 17.08.2022 for a further period of 20 years. 2.2. conversion HCJ & RRRJ WA_220_2025 & batch In the meantime, one Sri G. Anjaneyulu and G. Subramanyam had challenged the grant of a quarry lease for Black Granite in favor of the appellant, M/s. Golden Granites, before the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Rule 35A of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, by filing a Revision Petition against the proceedings dated 12.11.2001 of the Director of Mines and Geology at Hyderabad. 2.3. During the pendency of the said Revision Petition, the revision petitioners before the Government give up their claim in the property in Survey No.55/6 in favour of the M/s.Golden Granites, M.Srinivasa Rao and M. Rambabu and requested the Government to dismiss their revision petition treating the same as withdrawn. However, one D.Suresh Babu filed an application seeking impleadment as party respondent in the said appeal stating that he had right title and interest in the aforementioned land parcel measuring Ac.6.78 cents. The Revision Petition, however, came to be finally dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2014. 2.4. 2.5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Government in revision, the petitioner, BAS Granites, preferred Writ Petition No.30976 of 2014. During the pendency of the aforementioned writ petition since the lease earlier granted in favour of Golden Granites - appellant, had expired and since the same was renewed for a further period of twenty years by virtue of the order dated 17.08.2022, the same came to be challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.31072 of 2022. Apart from this, another writ petition bearing number 4 HCJ & RRRJ WA_220_2025 & batch 32252 of 2014 came to be filed against the revisional order by D. Suresh Babu. All these three petitions came to be allowed by virtue of the judgment and order impugned by the learned single Judge, who inter alia set aside the proceedings dated 17.08.2022, whereby the mining lease was renewed in favour of the appellant. On a perusal of the judgment and order impugned, the reasons for allowing the writ petitions as can be seen from the judgment and order, mainly are based on the premise that the revenue department had no jurisdiction to interfere and decide the title of the Patta lands, in view of the pendency of the Original Suit bearing O.S.No.224 of 2006 in respect of land in question. For facility of reference paragraphs 35 and 37 of the judgment are relevant and are reproduced hereunder: 3. "35. Further, the O.S. No. 224/2006 in respect of partition deed pertaining to Sy.No. 55/6 of R.L. Puram villages, filed by M/s BAS Granites is still pending before the Hon'ble Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. There is no jurisdiction to Revenue department to interfere to decide the title of the patta lands under the prevailing Acts/Rules in vogue. As the subject land is already sub judice and interfering with the title while a partition suit is pending, it is barred by the Rule 9 (c) (ii) of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules 1989. 37. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court observed that, the rights of the M/s Golden Granites were no way decided in the suit since the plaintiff failed to establish its rights over the said land. In any case, neither the petitioner herein nor its vendor were parties to that litigation. So, in the light of the above, the Prospecting Licence and quarry lease granted in favour of M/s Golden Granites are clearly illegal and are liable to be quashed. Therefore, this Court deems fit to allow the writ petitions.’’ Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the judgment and order to this extent was totally erroneous inasmuch as the suit to which 4. 5 HCJ & RRRJ WA_220_2025 & batch reference was made by the learned single Judge bearing O.S.No.224 of 2006 had since been dismissed on 14.11.2024. It is also stated that a reference in this regard was made specifically before the learned single Judge. A specific averment in this regard has in fact been made even in the Grounds of Appeal by the appellant and to be specific in paragraph 3 of Memo of Appeal. 5. The assertion made by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. B. Adi Narayana Rao, is in fact supported by a copy of the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2024, passed in O.S.No.224 of 2006, which is placed on record. Paragraph 61 of the said judgment and decree is relevant and is reproduced hereunder: “61. In view of the above discussion, this court holds that the plaintiffs failed to establish that Telekepalli Subramanyam retained the suit schedule extent, which was devolved upon his legal heirs, that it was transferred to the 1st plaintiff, that the plaintiffs have not shown all the sharers and the total extent liable for partition. As such, their claim for partition is not sustainable and the plaintiffs are not entitled for partition. Therefore, the question of considering whether execution of sale deed in favour of Manduva Srinivasa Rao and consequently to the 1st defendant firm, are valid and whether the claim of defendants 1 to 4 through Arundathamma is sustainable or not does not arise. Accordingly, these issues are answered.” It is pertinent also here to mention that the appellant - Golden Granites 6. among others was a party, defendant, in the above mentioned suit. \ Apart from this, it can also be seen that in paragraph 36 of the judgment and order impugned the learned single Judge had reproduced an extract from communication dated 04.08.2022 to support the fact that there were legal 6 HCJ & RRRJ WA_220_2025 & batch disputes in regard to ownership of the subject land between BAS Granites and the appellant - Golden Granites, which were pending. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr. B. Adi Narayana Rao, 7. would submit that the learned single Judge had yet again committed an error in drawing support from the communication, dated 04.08.2022, which was nothing but making a reference to a representation filed by an M.L.C., namely, D.C.Govinda Reddy, who wanted a resolution regarding the ownership of land falling under Survey No.55/6 and which therefore ought not to have been taken as an admission of the fact that there was a subsisting dispute between the parties more so when the civil court had expressly declined the relief to the plaintiffs and the suit dismissed. On a perusal of the communication dated 04.08.2022 it does appear to us to be clear that what was reproduced in the said communication was not the view of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology but the extract of the representation filed by a Member of the Legislative Council which erroneously was taken by the learned Single Judge to be representing the official view of the Assistant Director of Mines. Mr. K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioner - respondent No.1 herein - BAS Granites, would submit that the quarry lease could not have 8. been granted in favour of the appellant, in view of the fact that a single bench of this court in W.P.No.7303 of 1993 filed by G. Anjaneyulu and G. Subrahmanyam, even when had ordered that the N.O.C., which is a I HCJ & RRRJ WA_220_2025 & batch prerequisite for issuance of a quarry lease would be granted after conducting a proper enquiry by the District Collector, the same was not done and that the Tahsildar by virtue of its order dated 29.08.2021 had issued the N.O.C. for purposes of grant of lease. However, the argument of Mr. However, the argument of Mr. B. Adi Narayana Rao appearing for appellant is that pursuant to the orders passed by the High Court in W.P.No.7303 of 1993, the District Collector had cancelled the N.O.C. vide order dated 09.10.2002, which was challenged in W.P.No.21076 of 2002 and the same was set aside, by virtue of the judgment and order dated 26.10.2005. On a perusal of the judgment and order dated 26.10.2005 it does appear that the order passed by the Collector cancelling the N.O.C. issued by the M.R.O. was indeed set aside. The judgment and order on which Mr. K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance, in fact had worked itself out. 9. We are of the opinion that there was absolutely no basis for the learned single Judge to allow the petitions as the very substratum of the judgment and order impugned was based upon facts which were manifestly contrary to the material on record, more so when the petitioners had failed to highlight any procedural irregularity in either granting or refusing the quarry lease in favour of the appellants. Be that as it may, the present writ appeals are allowed and the common judgment and order impugned is, accordingly, set aside. 10. 8 HCJ & RRRJ WA_220_2025 & batch No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in these appeals, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Industries Commerce Mines Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Guntur District. 2. The Director of Mines and Geology, Office at Sri Anjaneya Towers Door No.7-104, B-Block Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada. 3. The Asst Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Prakasam Bhavan, Ongole, Prakasam District. 6. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. 7. One CC to Sri P. Kamlakar, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, Advocate [OPUO 9. One CC to Sri Prabhunath Vasi Reddy, Advocate[OPUC] 10. One CC to Sri N. Nirmal Kumar, Advocate[OPUC] 11. Two CC’s to GP for Mines and Geology, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 12. Two CC’s to GP for Revenue, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 13. Three CD Copies. ssb 7 HIGH COURT DATED:27/03/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.220, 221 AND 222 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS