K RAMACHANDRA REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Jamia Mosque in Palkur Village of Banaganipalli Mandal, Kurnool District, owns various extents of land. One such bit is the land in Survey No. 303, admeasuring about Acs. 10.00 cents. Out of that, the petitioner was granted mining lease to quarry lime stone slabs over an extent of one acre, on 14.11.2008, by the Department of Mines & Geology, for a period of three years. It was granted on the consent given by the A.P. State Wakf Board-2nd respondent. A clause was incorporated to the effect that the renewal in favour of the petitioner would be considered in case the 2nd respondent agrees for the same. The 2nd respondent gave consent for grant of mining lease in favour of the 6th respondent for the total extent of Acs. 10.00 cents of land, including the land that was leased to the petitioner. Since the consent was not given for renewal of lease by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioner over the extent of one acre, the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Banagnipalli Mandal-5th respondent did not renew the mining lease of the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the action of the 2nd respondent and the authorities of the Mines & Geology. He contends that being hopeful of getting the renewal of lease, he made investments, and stoppage of the same would lead to hardship and loss.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for the respondents 1, 4 and 5, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, and the learned Counsel for the 6th respondent.

(3.) The petitioner got mining lease over an extent of one acre of land, which admittedly owned by a Wakf Institution. Obviously, the lease was granted on the consent given by the Wakf Board. The renewal of lease depends upon the consent of the Wakf Board. By the time, the petitioner filed application for renewal of the lease, the 2nd respondent gave consent for grant of mining lease over the total extent of Acs. 10.00 cents of land in favour of the 6th respondent. This area included the one on which the lease was granted to the petitioner. Though the petitioner does not claim any right of ownership, since he has already started mining operations, the 2nd respondent ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner, before it intended to give consent to the 6th respondent. It is not a case where the 2nd respondent does not want any mining activity to take place upon the land owned by it. The very fact that it has given consent in respect of not only the extent of Ac. 1.00 cents, but also Acs. 9.00 cents more, discloses that its interest is only in earning revenue. The petitioner deserves to be given an opportunity in this regard.