APHC010695102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Tuesday, the thirty first day of March, two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.35881 of Between: A. Vijay Kumar and The State of A.P. and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1. T. N. M. Ranga Rao Counsel for the respondents: 1. G.P. for Revenue 2. Ms. Baliboyina Sravani, learned A. 3. G.P. for Mines & Geology The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the thirty first day of March, two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.35881 of 2025 and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: T. N. M. Ranga Rao Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Revenue Ms. Baliboyina Sravani, learned A.G.P. for Forest G.P. for Mines & Geology The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Tuesday, the thirty first day of March, two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Petitioner ...Respondents 2 BSB, J W.P.No.35881 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.8 in issuing notice, dated 27.11.2025, in spite of granting permission by the concerned authorities and issuing work orders as illegal, arbitrary, violation of the legal duty and violation of the Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and to set aside the notice, dated 27.11.2025, issued by the respondent No.8 and consequently direct the official respondents herein not to interfere with the peaceful activity of the petitioner as per the leasehold rights. 2. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is as follows: a. The petitioner was granted quarry lease for a period of ten (10) years in the land to an extent of Ac.2.697 hectares in Sy.No.31/P of Veerlagunapadu village, Ozili mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore district, vide lease deed granted by the Deputy Director, Mines & Geology, Guntur, vide proceeding No.3946/Q/AD(N)/2006, dated 25.11.2006. The petitioner made an application on 10.08.2023 to the mining authorities for renewal of the quarry lease for Road Metal & Gravel for a further period of 10 years in the same land. The District Mines & Geology Officer, Nellore, after considering all the relevant papers approved the proposal vide Lr.No.2256/AMP/DMGO/NLR/2024, dated 12.07.2024. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board also issued consent order, dated 15.05.2025. The Divisional Mines & Geology Officer, Gudur, Tirupathi District, addressed a letter to the petitioner, on 16.04.2025, to submit relevant documents to enter into the lease deed. Accordingly, a lease deed was executed on 24.06.2025 and a work order was also issued on the even date. 3 BSB, J W.P.No.35881 of 2025 b. When a joint survey was conducted by the forest and the revenue authorities, a joint survey report, dated 20.04.2021, was submitted categorically observing that as per the records of the revenue department, the entire land of Ac.269.71 cents is poramboke land and that there is no proof or evidence produced by the forest authority that it was handed over to the forest department. All the authorities have knowledge of the above joint survey report, yet, the work order was issued on 24.06.2025. The subject matter land under lease does not come under the reserve forest area. In a similar writ petition filed by third party in W.P.No.1315 of 2019, the revenue authorities filed sworn counter affidavit stating that the land in Sy.No.31/P of Veerlagunapadu village is not within the reserve forest area. When the petitioner was ready to start the work, the respondent No.8 issued a notice, dated 27.11.2025, to the petitioner with the averments contrary to the permissions and facts besides law, informing to the petitioner that the entire land of the lease given to the petitioner is within the reserve forest notified under Section 15 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 (for short, “Act, 1967’), vide G.O.Ms.No.1815, Food & Agriculture (Forest.III) Department, dated 05.09.1967, to an extent of 307 acres, out of which 269.71 acres in Sy.No.31 is part and described it as Veerlagunapadu-B Reserve Forest and further stated that the District Forest Officer, Nellore, had addressed letter to the Assistant Director, Mines & Geology, Nellore, that it has no jurisdiction to grant any mining lease in the said land without prior permission of the central government in violation of the provisions of the Act, 1967 and Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short, ‘Act, 1980’) and consequently, any trespass into the land for non-forest activity like mining is viewed seriously and could be prosecuted. The said notice is illegal and liable to be set aside. 4 BSB, J W.P.No.35881 of 2025 3. The respondent No.5 filed a counter with the averments, briefly stated, as follows: a. On the application made by the petitioner for grant of quarry lease in the above said land of Ac.7.41 cents in Sy.No.31/P of Veerlagunapadu village on 29.05.2006, the then Assistant Director of Mines & Geology addressed a letter to the respondent No.10 to issue N.O.C., after conducting inspection / survey for classification and availability of the land. The respondent No.10 informed that vide letter L.Dis.No.267/97, dated 23.09.1997, report was furnished that the land to an extent of 269.17 acres in Sy.No.31 of Veerlagunapadu village was classified as ‘Thippa Poramboke’ and that there was no objection to the revenue authorities to grant quarry lease in the above said land. Basing on the same, the then Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Nellore, submitted a combined proposal for grant of quarry lease along with others, to the then Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Guntur, vide letter, dated 13.11.2006. After verification of the proposals, the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Guntur, granted quarry lease to the petitioner for ten years and accordingly, the lease deed was executed for the period between 22.02.2007 to 21.02.2017. The petitioner carried out mining operation and paid necessary charges to the Mines Department. The petitioner submitted a renewal application on 11.01.2017. The Divisional Mines and Geology Officer, Gudur, submitted a proposal duly recommending renewal for another period of ten years. Meanwhile, the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 were amended vide G.O.Ms.No.25, Industries & Commerce (M-III) Department, dated 06.04.2023. Once again, the petitioner filed another renewal application as per the amended rules. Pursuant to the application, the District Mines and Geology Officer, 5 BSB, J W.P.No.35881 of 2025 Nellore, issued a letter of intent, on 01.06.2024 directing the petitioner to pay necessary differential amount and submission of statutory clearances. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted the necessary documents. Then, the District Mines & Geology Officer, Nellore, granted first renewal, vide proceedings, dated 27.03.2025, for a period of 10 years subject to the conditions imposed in the lease deed as per the Rules, 1966. Accordingly, renewal lease deed was executed on 24.06.2025 for a period of ten years from 01.04.2023. Since then, the petitioner carried out the quarry operations in accordance with the Rules, 1966 without any deviation, by paying necessary charges. Apart from the petitioner, five others were granted quarry lease in the land in Sy.No.31 of Veerlagunapadu village based on N.O.C. issued by the respondent No.10, vide letter, dated 23.09.1997, as the land in Sy.No.31 to an extent of 269.17 acres was classified as ‘Thippa Poramboke’ and the revenue department has no objection. b. While the things stood thus, respondent No.8 addressed a letter vide Rc.No.25/2025, dated 02.12.2025, to this respondent that the entire land in Sy.No.31/P of Veerlagunapadu village lies inside the reserve forest boundary and requested to cancel the lease with immediate effect. The leases were granted as per the revenue record. The writ petition may be dismissed. 4. The respondent No.7 filed a counter affidavit with the averments, briefly stated, as follows: a. It is incorrect that the renewal of quarry lease was validly granted / renewed to the petitioner. This land is an integral part of Veerlagunapadu ‘B’ reserve forest duly notified vide G.O.Ms.No.1815, Food & Agriculture (Forest.III) Department, dated 05.09.1967, for a total 6 BSB, J W.P.No.35881 of 2025 extent of 307 acres of land. The joint survey conducted by the department of forest and revenue on 20.04.2021 clarified that the entire land in Sy.No.31 of Veerlagunapadu village is within the reserve forest boundary. Subsequently, a request letter, dated 24.09.2021, was addressed by the Divisional Forest Officer, S.P.S.R. Nellore, to the Tahsildar, Ozili Mandal, to effect changes in the entries in the revenue record. But, there is no reply from the revenue department nor are any changes brought up in the records. Any quarrying / mining activity inside the notified reserved forest, without prior approval from the Forest Department is prohibited under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (now, referred as van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980) and Rules, 2023. Therefore, any renewal of quarry lease without complying the procedure is illegal and void ab initio. The Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Venkatagiri, vide Rc.No.25/2025, dated 02.12.2025, addressed a letter to the Divisional Mines & Geology Officer, Gudur, for cancellation of the renewal / lease as it violates the provisions of Section 20(1)(c)(ii) and (v) of the Act, 1967 and the Act, 1980. Since the mining lease expired in the year 2017, there is no continuity in mining operations. It is also evident from Ex.P10 filed by the petitioner. The inaction on the part of the revenue department to carry out mutation in the entries in revenue records does not disentitle the forest department to de-zone the entitlement. The petitioner or the revenue authorities or the mining authorities are not allowed to encroach the forest land. W.P.No.1315 of 2019 was also filed by the same counsel who filed the present petition. There was a joint survey held on 19.12.2018. The outcome of the joint survey is that Sy.No.31 is within the reserve forest of Veerlagunapadu village - B block. The same result is the outcome of another joint survey conducted on 20.04.2021. 7 BSB, J W.P.No.35881 of 2025 b. The act of mining operations in the forest land came to the light after conducting joint survey on 19.12.2018. Since there was frequent change of officers, it is not coming out why quarry operations were allowed earlier. But, after joint survey, the department of forest is reminding the mining department to cancel the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner. Any mining activity in the forest land destroys the ecological and environmental balance in the sensitive ecosystem in the subject land. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India & Others1, the term ‘forest land’ in Section 2 of the Act, 1980 includes not only forests in dictionary sense but also all areas recorded as forest in government records, irrespective of ownership / classification and therefore, merely because the revenue entries show the subject land as Thippa Poramboke, the non-forest activities are not allowed without the approval of the central government and Section 2 of the Act, 1980. Hence, appropriate orders may be passed. 5. The respondent No.10 filed a counter with the averments, briefly stated, as follows: a. The land to an extent of Ac.269.71 in Sy.No.31 of Veerlagunapadu village, Ozili mandal is classified as ‘Thippa Poramboke’, as per the village records. On application filed by the petitioner before the District Mines & Geology Officer, mining lease was granted to the petitioner vide proceedings No.2266/02/2006, dated 22.02.2007, to an extent of Ac.7.41 cents in Sy.No.31/P of Veerlagunapadu village for a period of ten years from 22.02.2007 to 1 Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1306 8 BSB, J W.P.No.35881 of 2025 21.02.2017. The lease period was extended from time to time. Since then, the petitioner carried out mining operation in the said land. In the land in Sy.No.31, several others were granted mining leases. The said land was not handed over to the forest department under afforestation as per the records available in the office of this respondent. A detailed joint survey was conducted along with the office of the forest department. The officials of the forest department did not confirm that Ac.269.71 cents in Sy.No.31 was classified as reserve forest. Land of Ac.170.00 cents in Sy.No.31 out of Ac.269.71 cents in Sy.No.31 of Veerlagunapadu village was under leases granted to different persons. The leases were renewed from time to time. At the time of granting lease to the petitioner, Sy.No.31 of Veerlagunapadu village was noted as Sy.No.31P as sub-division was not created. Sy.Nos.31 and 31P are one and the same (in the written instructions of this respondent, it was reported that there is no survey number 31/P). b. This High Court, by order, dated 21.01.2026, in this writ petition, directed respondent No.10 to place the connected records before this Court for verification. Accordingly, the record was placed before this Court. Accordingly, on 28.01.2026, this High Court ordered that the concerned respondent shall produce the record of the Forest Settlement Officer relating to the land notified under Section 15 of the Act, 1967 which is the subject matter of this writ petition. A detailed joint survey was conducted along with the forest officials. It is true that in W.P.No.1315 of 2019 filed by K.Uday Kumar S/o. Gopal Rao, the then Tahsildar of Ozili mandal, has filed a counter stating that the land in Sy.No.31 of Veerlagunapadu village is Thippa poramboke, but not reserve forest. W.P.No.1315 of 2019 is pending before this Court. The respondent No.8, without confirming that the land in Sy.No.31 is under 9 BSB, J W.P.No.35881 of 2025 reserve forest, issued a notice to the writ petitioner. Similarly, they have also issued notices to vacate the land to other lease holders. The land in Sy.No.31P of Veerlagunapadu village was not handed over to the forest department under afforestation. The reserve forest is located at a distance of 3.78 km from the subject land. The forest department laid stones outside the forest area by including land in Sy.Nos.32, 39, 42, 43, 44 of Veerlagunapadu village and Arimenipadu village without having any proof that the government gave that land to the forest department under afforestation. In between the reserve forest and patta lands, government lands are existing. Generally, the land classified as Adavi / reserve forest recorded as village forest is governed by Act, 1967 but the land in Sy.No.31 is not so governed as it is Thippa poramboke. Hence, the contentions raised by the forest department are not sustainable. Finally, it is prayed to pass necessary orders as this Court may deem fit and proper. 6. The petitioner filed a reply to the counter of the respondent No.7 with the averments, briefly stated, as follows: The respondent No.7 is misleading the Court by playing fraud on the Court by showing sketches / maps which are not certified copies of the original survey settlement records. The counter filed by the respondent No.7 is trying to mislead and confuse the Court and diverting the issue involved in the present writ petition. The respondent No.7 is claiming the property as if it is the forest property. The burden of proof always lies on them. They did not even produce the original survey settlement record with sketches from the year 1963 to 1967. In those circumstances, the Court may draw presumption against the forest department when the revenue department as well as mining department specifically contended that the subject land does not belong 10 BSB, J W.P.No.35881 of 2025 to the forest department. Apart from that, the revenue department specifically contended that the nature of land is Thippa poramboke and was never handed over to the forest department. In the said circumstances, the writ petitioner would not suffer by virtue of the vexatious litigation created by the forest department. The writ petitioner got work orders from the mining department on 24.06.2025 and in view of the litigation created by the respondent No.8, the petitioner was compelled to pay Rs.3,50,000/-, otherwise, the department will impose the penalty or cancel the leasehold rights. Unless the writ petition is allowed, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and great hardship. 7. Along with the writ affidavit, copies of the following documents were enclosed:- Sl. No. Document Exhibit 1 Notice issued by the Forest Ranger Officer (FAC), Venkatagiri to the petitioner, dt.27.11.2025 P1 2 Copy of application, dated 10.08.2023, for renewal lease period P2 3 Copies of particulars of work orders and permission, dated 31.03.2023 P3 4 Copy of notice issued by the 4th respondent – Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Nellore P4 5 Copy of letter, dated 12.07.2024, addressed to the petitioner by the District Mines & Geology Officer, P5 6 Copy of letter, dated 20.08.2024, addressed to the Chairman, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Andhra Pradesh, by the Divisional Mines and Geology Officer P6 11 BSB, J W.P.No.35881 of 2025 7 Copy of EC approval, dated 24.01.2025 P7 8 Copy of approval of zonal office, Tirupathi, dated 06.03.2025 P8 9 Copy of letter, dated 16.04.2025, addressed to the petitioner by the Divisional Mines and Geology Officer P9 10 Copy of renewal order, dated 27.03.2025, vide Proceedings No.1098/RQL/2024 P10 11 Copy of consent orders, dated 15.05.2205 P11 12 Copy of work orders, dated 24.06.2025 P12 13 Copy of joint survey report, dated 20.04.2021 P13 14 Copy of letter addressed to the Chairman, State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, dated 07.11.2024 P14 15 Copy of counter in W.P.No.1315 of 2019 P15 8. Today, i.e., on 31.03.2026, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed memo of additional documents stating that the forest authorities have not furnished relevant records mentioned in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in this writ petition and they have also not supplied concerned records on the application made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and therefore, sufficient presumption may be drawn against the forest department for non-production of the relevant records and allow the writ petition. 9. Along with the memo, copies of application filed under the Right to Information Act are enclosed. 12 BSB, J W.P.No.35881 of 2025 10. The matter was already heard on 18.03.2026 and posted today for pronouncement of orders. 11. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Forest Department miserably failed to show that the subject land is within the reserve forest and that the notification said to have been issued under Section 15 of the Act, 1967, is not relating to the subject land. He further submitted that the land recorded as ‘Thippa poramboke’ cannot be declared as forest land without conversion of the land as per the letter and that there is no record or proof that possession of the land was given by the revenue authorities to the forest department. That apart, he argued that it is the burden of the forest department to show that the subject land is within forest department and till such time, the forest department cannot interfere with the activity of the petitioner, in view of permissions already granted by several departments as stated in the petition and it is only renewal, whereas the lease was already granted long back about two decades ago and since then, till now, there has been no objection from any corner. He further submitted that there is no reference of any survey number in the notification said to have been issued under Section 15 of the Act, 1967, and therefore, the land in the said notification has no connection to the subject land and moreover, the officers of the forest department themselves could not show that it was notified as forest land, during the time of joint inspection, as is noted in the report itself. As mentioned in the memo, dated 31.03.2026, he requested, during the course of arguments also to draw an adverse inference. 12. The learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Revenue and Mines & Geology submitted as in their counters. 13 BSB, J W.P.No.35881 of 2025 13. The learned A.G.P. for Forests vehemently contended that the notification under Section 15 of the Act, 1967, need not contain reference to any survey number and it is sufficient to declare the land as a reserve forest with reference to the boundaries and that the joint survey report clearly indicated that the subject land is within the boundaries of the forest land. She further submitted that the notification was issued in the year 1967 and thereafter, no activity of mining is permissible under law merely because no mutation was made in the entries of revenue record, since law prohibits such activity. She further submitted that there are no separate survey numbers 31 and 31P of Veerlagunapadu village and the same was also admitted by the revenue department and that if at all, mining is to be done in the forest area, appropriate procedure is to secure the permission of the Central government as per Section 2 of the Act, 1980, but without taking such a recourse, the mining leases were illegally granted, and therefore, such permissions or leases granted are not legally enforceable and not binding on the department of forests. With regard to production of the documents, she submitted that detailed counters are filed in I.A.No.1 of 2026 and that whatever record was available was already submitted before this Court and no other record is available and no adverse inference shall be drawn as the Forest Settlement Officer is not from the department of forest, but he is an officer from the revenue department and the relevant record would be available only with the office of the District Collector concerned. She further submitted that the map relating to forest block ‘B’ was already enclosed to the notification issued under Section 15 and the same holds good. 14. As can be seen from the contentions of both the parties, the crux of the dispute is with regard to the nature of the land. Admittedly, the 14 BSB, J W.P.No.35881 of 2025 entries in the revenue records continued to be ‘Thippa poramboke’ in spite of correspondence made after joint survey to mutate the nature of the land in the relevant revenue records. It is surprising that though the proceedings under Section 15 of the Act, 1967, have not been denied by the revenue department, no record is placed before this Court as to what is the entry made relating to that notified area in the revenue records. When the joint survey was held in the presence of the officers of the forest department and the revenue authorities, with reference to the identity particulars in the notification and the revenue record, it was observed that the land still continues to be shown as ‘Thippa poramboke’ and the said land was covered within the forest area. Therefore, merely because of the inaction of the revenue department to maintain correct entries, the provisions of the Act, 1967 do not become ineffective. They operate as per law. It is not once, but twice joint survey was held and it was found that the disputed entire site was within the boundaries of the forest area. It is for the revenue department to take necessary steps insofar as making mutation of the entries in the relevant records. Just because some proceedings were issued as per the correspondence or permissions were given by then, the proceedings do not attain sanctity in law even after noticing that they are not in accordance with law. As such, the contention of the petitioner that the department of forest cannot interfere in the lease already granted has no force in law. 15. It is a case of glaring example of inaction of the revenue department leading to conflict of interest of the private individual on one hand and the department of forest on the other hand. All the permissions accorded by the department of mining and the revenue department are not within the purview of the department of forests. 15 BSB, J W.P.No.35881 of 2025 Whatever sanctions accorded in the past were not with the consent or to the knowledge of the department of forest. Therefore, for any number of proceedings permitting or granting lease for mining, the department of forest cannot be prohibited or prevented from enforcing the provisions of law relating to the forest. As such, there is no illegality in the notice impugned in this writ petition. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petition. 16. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.31.03.2026 Note:- Issue CC by 06.04.2026 (B/o) RAR