IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 100 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 18094 of 2023 dated 24.01.2025. Between: Aduru Badarinath, S/o. Late Veeroji Rao, aged about 50 years, R/o. Kanupuru Village, Venkatachalam Mandal, SPSR Nellore District ...APPELLANT AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District 3. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District 4. The Joint Collector/Settlement officer, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District 5. M/s.Siddeswara Minerals, Rep.by its Managing Partner, Aduru Kishore,S/o.Aduru Navanandulaiah, Jogipalli Village,Sydapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 6. M/s. Sri Vigneswara Minerals, Rep. by its Managing partner, Aduru Srinivasulu, S/o. A. Bala Krisnaiah, 9-382, Thopu Bazar, Chimakurthy, Prakasam District Cause title amended w.r.t.Respondent No.5 as per c.o.dt.14.02.2025 in W.A.No.100 of 2025. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 that in the under Section 151 CPC is filed praying Petition circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High direct the respondents not to permit the Court may be pleased to respondents 5 and 6 to do mining activities with respect to land of an extent Sy.No.39/part, Ac.2.90 cents in Sy.No.49/part, Ac.9.36 Sy.No.56/1 of Jogipalli village, Sydapalli Mandal, SPSR Nellore by suspending the proceedings of the 3'*^ respondent in 106/P/2018, 2669/P/2017, 2670/P/2017, dt.06.04.2023 of Jogipalli village. Ac.7.96 cents in cents in District dt.20.03.2023, Sydapuram Writ Appeal. Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, pending disposal of the above Counsel for the Appellant: SRI C SUBODH Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel for Respondent No.4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6: SRI T SREEDHAR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT X APHC010065862025 IN THEE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 100 of 2025 ...Appellant Aduru Badarinath Vs. ...Respondent(s) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ********** Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr. C Subodh Govt. Pleader for Revenue, Govt. Pleader for Mines And Geology Mr.T Sreedhar Advocate for Appellant: Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO DATE : 14th February 2025 PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ : The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 24.01.2025, passed in W.P.Nos.18094 & 14375 of 2023, challenging the orders, dated 20.03.2023 & 06.04.2023, issued by the Director of Mines and Geology in granting mining licenses in favour of respondent Nos.5 & 6 as being bad in law and contrary to the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.16433 of 2022, dated 20.09.2022, and Writ Appeal No.755 of 2022, dated 13.10.2022. 2. The petitioner/appellant herein - Aduru Badarinath claims to be one of the family members of Aduru Estate holders, which was abolished under the HCJ a Dr. YLR,J WA_100_2025 Estates Abolition Act, 1956. A suit was filed by some of the members of the family for partition of the estate land. A preliminary decree was passed on 19.12.1951. Some of the family members had filed claims before the Joint Collector/Settlement Officer, Nellore, against whose orders an appeal was preferred before the Estate Abolition Appellate Tribunal, which remanded the matter by virtue of its order, 13.12.1971. The Joint Collector then passed 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 petitioner would not have any right. This order was challenged by way of C.M.A. Nos.27 & 29 of 2009 on the file of Estate Abolition Appellate Tribunal, which remanded the matter to the Settlement Officer, by virtue of its order, dated 28.04.2012. The Settlement Officer yet again passed fresh orders on 02.09.2016 essentially reiterating the order, dated 07.02.2009. Aggrieved by the same, C.M.A. No.11 of 2016 came to be filed before the Principal District Judge, Nellore. During the pendency of C.M.A. No. 11 of 2016, steps were taken by respondent No.5 and others for obtaining mining leases over the land, which was declared as mining poramboke. 3. W.P. No.5985 of 2021 was filed by one Avula Vijayamma questioning the action of the respondent authorities in proposing to issue mining leases in favour of Aduru Navanandulaiah, who is the managing partner of respondent No.5 - M/s Siddeswara Minerals Limited. The said petition came to be 4. 3 HCJ a Dr. YLR,J WA_100_2025 disposed of by virtue of 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.MA. No.11 of 2016. Disposal of C.M.A. No.11 of 2016 resulted in remanding the matter back to Settlement Officer. While the matter was pending before the Settlement Officer, W.P. No. 16433 of 2022 came to be filed with a view to prohibit the grant of mining leases in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein pending the disposal of the matter, which was before the Settlement Officer. W.P. No. 16433 of 2022 was disposed of by virtue of order, dated 20.09.2022 in the following terms; 5. “11. In the circumstances, it must be held that in view of the earlier directions of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.5985 of 2021 dated 11.02.2022, which are binding on the petitioners as well as the respondents, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 not to take any further steps for execution of lease deed in favour of 5**^ respondent and the firm in which the 6th respondent is a Managing Partner, till the dispute relating to the said lease is disposed of finally.” Writ Appeal bearing No.755 of 2022 was preferred against the said judgment and order filed by respondent Nos.5 & 6. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the order by holding as under; 6. “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 the learned counsel for the parties and the matter in its entirety, we are not inclined to take any different view than the one taken by the learned single Judge.” 4 HCJ & Dr. YLR,J WA_100_2025 7. It is in the aforementioned backdrop that despite clear directions from a single Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 16433 of 2022 as also the order of Division Bench, dated 13.10.2022, specifically prohibiting grant of lease in respect of the lands in question till the dispute was finally disposed of, the official respondents issued three proceedings, dated 20.03.2023 & 06.04.2023, permitting execution of lease deeds in favour of respondent Nos.5 & 6 in regard to lands covered under proceeding Nos.106/P/2018, 2669/P/2017, dated 20.03.2023, and No.2670/P/2017, dated 06.04.2023. The mining rights have been granted subject to the outcome of the writ appeal filed against the orders, dated 24.02.2023, in C.M.A. No.11 of 2016. The aforementioned three proceedings then came to be challenged by the appellant herein before the learned single Judge in the writ petition challenging the execution of the lease deeds in favour of the private respondent Nos.5 & 6 as being contrary to the various judgments and orders passed hereinbefore referred to in the preceding paragraphs. 8. 9. On a reading of the judgment and order impugned, it can be seen that the learned single Judge dismissed the petition solely on the ground that the litigation was about five decades old, which would result in a big loss to the public exchequer and private respondent Nos.5 & 6, who were granted quarry lease and who had obtained statutory permissions such as environmental clearance, consent for establishment, consent for operations, have started 5 C HCJ a Dr. YLR,J WA_100_2025 mining operations and were paying Normal Seigniorage Fee (royalty) as also Dead Rent etc. Public loss of revenue appears to be the only reason for dismissing the writ petition by holding the petition as having been filed against public policy and public interest. 10. In our view, the view expressed by the learned single Judge is quite unsustainable in the light of the fact that previously in the litigation between the same parties, not only a single Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 16433 of 2022 vide it’s order, dated 20.09.2022, but even the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.755 of 2022 vide it’s order, dated 13.10.2022, had specifically held that no further steps ought to be taken for execution of the lease deeds in respect of the lands in question till the dispute was disposed of finally. In the present case, admittedly the dispute has not been disposed of finally as the Settlement Officer upon remand passed an order, dated 24.02.2023 against which C.M.A. No.4 of 2023 has since been filed, which is pending before the Estates Abolition Tribunal. Learned single Judge ought to have considered that the issue between the parties in regard to prohibiting the official respondents from executing any lease deeds in regard to the land in question till the dispute was finally disposed of, was as much binding on the authorities as it was on the learned single Judge, who ought to have considered the orders in their correct perspective. 6 HCJ a Dr. YLR,J WA_100_2025 Needless to say that the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.16433 of 2022 as upheld by the Division Bench vide its order, dated 13.10.2022, did not restrict issue of execution of lease deed till the disposal of a particular appeal or proceedings before a particular authority, but it specifically held that the lease deed would not be executed in favour of the private respondent Nos.5 & 6 till the dispute relating to the said lease ‘disposed of finally’. was was 11. Be that as it may, we set aside the judgment and order impugned also declare the execution of the lease deeds in favour of respondent Nos.5 & 6 as non est in the eyes of law and shall be deemed to have been cancelled. Execution of the lease deed in future would depend upon the final disposal of the dispute. No costs. as Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// Ifr SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur District. The Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District The Joint Collector/Settlement officer, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District The Managing Partner, M/s.Siddeswara Minerals, Rep.by Aduru Kishore,S/o.Aduru Navanandulaiah, Jogipalli Village,Sydapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. The Managing partner. M/s. Sri Vigneswara Minerals, Rep. by Aduru Srinivasulu, S/o. A. Bala Krisnaiah, 9-382, Thopu Bazar, Chimakurthy Prakasam District. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. One CC to Sri C Subodh, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri T Sreedhar, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Mines and Geology, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 10. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 11. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:14/02/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.100 of 2025 ANDH^ S’ 2 8 FEB 2025 to, ^ Current Section ALLOWING THE W.R., WITHOUT COSTS