D. PENTAM NAIDU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for grant of Mining lease to an extent of 6.44 hectares in Survey No.4 of Kudia Village, Ananthagiri Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, in respect of Mineral Calcite and Mica and considering the same, the State of Andhra Pradesh, granted the Mining Lease, vide G.O.Ms.No.398, Industries Department & Commerce (Mines-III) Department. The 3rd respondent issued work orders in his proceedings, permitting the petitioner to commerce the Mining Lease operations as per the provisions of Minor Mineral Concession Rules and other conditions. While so, one Naveena Educated Empower Development Samithi, made a complaint that the leased area and the mining operations are undertaken in a Forest Notified Area. Based upon the said complaint, the Forest Officials, without passing any orders of whatsoever, orally instructing us, not to take up the mining operations in the leased area. Hence, the petitioner made representation to the 7th respondent i.e., Chief Conservator of Forests, Visakhapatnam, requesting to issue necessary directions to the concerned Forest Officials not to cause hindrance, obstructions, in execution of mining operations in leased area, which is a patta land and falls in the Revenue area of the village. Since no action has been taken, the petitioner made representation to the 6th respondent i.e., Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. The 6th respondent directed the 8th respondent i.e., Divisional Forest Officer, Visakhapatnam to rectify the Village boundary and the Forest boundary, by conducting a joint field survey with reference to the concerned record and file a report, by 15/10/2017. Thereafter, the 8th respondent vide his proceedings, sent to the 7th respondent stated that the entire mining area is falling outside the Kudia Revenue Village and within the Pedakota Reserve Land, by observing that the area of Kudia Revenue Village, given by the petitioner, is almost two to three times than the actual area, as per the Revenue Records. The 6th respondent directed the 7th respondent to settle issue at his level as the dispute is pending for last several months. However, the Full Additional Charge of the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Guntur wrote a letter to the 4th respondent i.e., District Collector, Visakhapatnam to prepare a Village Map of Kudia Village, Ananthagiri Mandal, by marking a copy of the same to the Forest Department to settle the issue. The 7th respondent sent a letter to the 6th respondent submitting the conclusions arrived by the 8th respondent, by orders dtd. 27/10/2017. Therefore, the petitioner made a complaint before the Grievance Cell of the 4th respondent, seeking that a joint survey to be conducted by the Revenue and Forest Department, so as to clarify that whether the mining area falls under Revenue village area of Reserve Forest area. The 4th respondent sent the communication to the 6th respondent, wherein the Village Map of Kudia Village was enclosed, showing that the leased area in Survey No.4, falls within the Revenue Village Area and requested to take further action in the matter. Pursuant to the same, the 6th respondent directed the 8th respondent not to interfere with the mining operations conducted by the petitioner until and unless, it is proved that the leased area is contrary to report of 4th respondent or subject to outcome of Joint Survey to be conducted by Revenue, Forest and Survey Departments. Without conducting a joint survey, the 6th respondent issued orders directing the 8th respondent that no mining shall be allowed in the leased area, stating that mining area falls under Reserve Forest Area. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) This Court, vide order, dtd. 1/8/2018, has granted interim order in I.A.No.2 of 2018 as follows: