PC:

1. The present Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 05.05.2022, rendered in W.P.No.37514 of 2018. The said writ petition bearing No.37514 of 2018 came to be decided along with W.P.Nos.9270 of 2019 and 880 of 2020.

2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:

                  A mining lease came to be granted in favour of the appellant over an extent of Ac.5.75 Cents situate in Pathatungapadu Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. The said lease came to be granted in favour of the appellant after an NOC was issued by the Tahsildar vide his communication, dated 27.02.2006, in which the Tahsildar took a stand that, out of the land measuring Ac.12.85 Cents, land to the extent of Ac.5.00 Cents had since been assigned in favour of Sri Kovvuri Gangi Reddy, while an extent of Ac.6.55 Cents was still available for considering the request of the appellant for grant of quarry lease.

                  This NOC became the basis for grant of mining lease in favour of the appellant, which NOC however was not correct inasmuch as the Revenue Department had since granted pattas in favour of the beneficiaries – Sri Bhamidi Venkataratnam (husband of petitioner No.1) and Sri Dandangi Ramakrishna/petitioner No.2 to an extent of Ac.3.00 Cents and Ac.2.87 Cents respectively both vide order, dated 08.02.2001.

                  The factum of grant of pattas in favour of aforementioned beneficiaries cannot be denied inasmuch as show cause notices came to be issued in favour of the patta holders and subsequently final orders passed cancelling the pattas issued in their favour vide orders, dated 06.06.2019 and 02.01.2020, which came to be subsequently challenged in W.P.No.9270 of 2019 and W.P.No.880 of 2020.

3. The learned single Judge, by virtue of the common judgment and order, dated 05.05.2022, allowed all the three petitions and held the beneficiaries as entitled for assignment of land and grant of pattas in their favour in the Ex-Servicemen category. The judgment and order, however, rendered in W.P.No.9270 of 2019 and W.P.No.880 of 2020, have not been challenged and therefore the right and entitlement of the beneficiaries for grant of such an assignment remains unquestioned.

                  Insofar as W.P.No.37514 of 2018 is concerned, the learned single Judge held that the grant of mining lease in regard to land, which was since the subject matter of assignment in favour of the beneficiaries, the predecessor in interest of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, was impermissible inasmuch as the title of the lands in question vested with the petitioners and therefore it was impermissible for the Department of Mines and Geology to have granted any such lease in favour of the appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the application for grant of mining lease was filed as early as in the year, 2003, the mining lease was granted in favour of the appellant in the year, 2013, vide G.O.Ms.No.14, Industries & Commerce (M.IV) Department, dated 19.02.2013, and all along the appellant had been paying seigniorage fee and dead rent etc. and therefore to hold the appellant as not entitled to the grant of mining lease would cause irreparable loss and prejudice to the appellant.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

                  Admittedly on the date when the mining lease was granted in favour of the appellant and even before that when the application was filed by him for grant of such a mining lease in the year, 2003, the assignment stood made in favour of the beneficiaries under the Ex-Servicemen quota as early as on 08.02.2001.

6. The NOC issued by the Tahsildar concerned, which was one of the factors for permitting the grant of mining lease in favour of the appellant, was not based on facts and was erroneous on the face of it inasmuch as the pattas had already been granted in favour of the beneficiaries, the predecessor in interest of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. This can also be gauged from the fact that the Revenue Department had issued show cause notices to the beneficiaries to show cause as to why the assignments made in their favour be not cancelled, and finally passed orders, dated 06.06.2019 and 02.01.2020, cancelling the pattas issued in their favour.

7. This clearly goes to show that the NOC issued by the Tahsildar was without any basis. In any case, once it is admitted that the possession was with the predecessor in interest of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 and assignments stood made, then no such mining lease could have been at all granted in favour of the appellant, without obtaining the consent of the beneficiary patta holders.

                  Reference, in this regard, is made by learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 to G.O.Ms.No.163, I & C (Mines-II) Department, dated 16.11.2017, which reads as under:

                  “8 (ix) In respect of Assigned Lands/Patta Lands, the Tahsildar shall indicate the names of the Assignees/Pattadars based on the latest land records for obtaining consent from them.”

8. The requirement of sub-clause (ix) of Clause 8 had certainly not been fulfilled. Although G.O.Ms.No.163, dated 16.11.2017, was issued as late as in the year, 2017, and it has not been brought to our notice as to whether there was any such Government Order, which governed the field prior to 2017, yet it goes without saying that if land stood already assigned in favour of the beneficiaries, no rights could have been created over the said land without the consent of the pattadars.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we cannot persuade ourselves to take a view different from the one taken by the learned single Judge. The present appeal is without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

                  Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.