Judgment : ORDER: 1. The first petitioner was granted quarry lease over an extent of 2.00 hectares of land in Survey No.171/1 of Maddulapally Village, Khammam District vide proceedings dated 04.02.2005 for extracting black granite. The lease is valid till 2023. The 2nd petitioner was granted lease in the immediate neighbourhood in the same survey number over an extent of one hectare on 05.05.2007 for a period of 20 years for the same purpose. The 7th respondent is the Sarpanch of the Village. The land in Survey No.171 belongs to Government and it is vast in extent. An idol of Kaalikamaatha was installed in a part of the land in Survey No.171 in the year 1995. Disputes arose as to the installation thereof and correspondence ensued. A Trust for the maintenance of the Temple came into existence and the 6th respondent is its Chairman. 2. Respondents 6 and 7 made a representation to the District Collector, Khammam, with a request to alienate Ac.0.08 guntas of land in Survey No.171, where the deity was installed. The 1st respondent called for reports from respondents 2 and 3 and on a consideration of the same, passed an order dated 04.12.2009 directing alienation of Ac.0.20 cents i.e. Ac0.08 guntas of land in Survey No.171 on payment of market value fixed at Rs.50,000/- per acre. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the said proceedings. 3. The petitioners contend that the construction of Temple in the neighbourhood of the land leased to them would hamper and hinder their mining activity. They also submit that the 1st respondent did not take into account the objections raised by them and that the deity was installed with an oblique motive. According to the petitioners, the quarrying of the valuable granite in part of Survey No.171 would become impossible on account of construction of Temple. Reliance is also placed upon certain orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.8519 of 2006. 4. The 7th respondent filed a counter affidavit. He denied the allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated that the idol was installed long before the petitioners were granted leases and that none of the villagers have obstructed the mining activity undertaken by the petitioners. It is mentioned that the electricity supply was extended to the Temple on 31.03.1996. 4. The 7th respondent filed a counter affidavit. He denied the allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated that the idol was installed long before the petitioners were granted leases and that none of the villagers have obstructed the mining activity undertaken by the petitioners. It is mentioned that the electricity supply was extended to the Temple on 31.03.1996. The cost of the land being Rs.10,000/- was said to have been paid and that the possession of Ac.0.08 guntas of land was delivered on 17.12.2009. Substantial construction of the Temple is also said to have been completed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the deity was installed not out of any devotion but with an object of causing hindrance for quarrying activity. He submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued specific directions prohibiting assignment of land for construction of Temples or other places of worship at public places. He further submits that the State Government prohibited the mineral bearing areas from being put to other use. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the application submitted by the 7th respondent was examined on its own merits and alienation of Ac.0.08 gutnas was made duly collecting the consideration. He also submits that no irregularities have taken place in the alienation. 7. Learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 submits that the writ petition is filed with an ulterior motive to prevent the construction of the Temple in the Village. He further submits that the petitioners came into picture long after the deity was installed and as long as it is not in the land that was leased to the petitioners, they cannot have any plausible objection. They submit that the Garbhalaya and the Mandapam were constructed by the time the writ petition was filed and interim order was passed. 8. It appears that quite large extent of Government land exists in the Village in Survey No.171. In a part of it, there are deposits of black granite. The record discloses that the villagers installed a deity of Kaalikaamatha in the year 1995. The authorities of the Revenue Department raised objection for such installation. Ultimately, to have clear and perfect right over the land, the villagers, through their Sarpanch, approached the District Collector for alienation of Ac.0.08 guntas i.e. one fifth acre of land in Survey No.171. 9. The record discloses that the villagers installed a deity of Kaalikaamatha in the year 1995. The authorities of the Revenue Department raised objection for such installation. Ultimately, to have clear and perfect right over the land, the villagers, through their Sarpanch, approached the District Collector for alienation of Ac.0.08 guntas i.e. one fifth acre of land in Survey No.171. 9. The petitioners were granted mining leases in the year 2002 and 2005 respectively over an extent of 3 hectares. It is not even alleged that Ac.0.08 guntas of land alienated in favour of the Tempe is part of the area leased to the petitioners. The petitioners placed heavy reliance upon the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, 2nd respondent herein to the 1st respondent. After referring to the proposal and the grant of leases in favour of the petitioners, the 2nd respondent made the following observation: In this connection it is to submit that earlier the then Revenue divisional Officer, Khammam has inspected the land and opined that it is dumping yard of Granite quarry and the request to allot the land in Sy.No.171 to the applicant was negatived and report was submitted vide this office ref.No.B1/456/07, Dt.29.03.08 (copy enclosed) 10. From a perusal of this, it is clear that the 2nd respondent has in a way approved all the activities of the petitioners in utilizing the Government land, which was not leased to them. It is not understandable as to how the petitioners were permitted to use the Government land not leased to them as dumping yard. For all practical purposes, the 2nd respondent and his predecessor worked as the facilitators to the petitioners. Any sensible and responsible officer would have taken objection for a lessee, if the latter used any unleased Government land for dumping purposes. Unfortunately there is no dearth of the Officials in various Departments, who readily use their official status to advance the affluent violators of law. Except that the 2nd respondent wanted to act as a protector, if not as an agent of the petitioners, he did not have any regard or sensibility towards the feelings of the entire village. At any arte, being the ultimate authority to accord sanction, the 1st respondent is entitled to form an independent opinion. Except that the 2nd respondent wanted to act as a protector, if not as an agent of the petitioners, he did not have any regard or sensibility towards the feelings of the entire village. At any arte, being the ultimate authority to accord sanction, the 1st respondent is entitled to form an independent opinion. Except that the petitioners are interested in preventing the coming into existence of a place of worship of the Village, they are not able to demonstrate as to what detriment they have suffered on account of the alienation of a small piece of Ac.0.08 gutnas of land for the benefit of the entire village. 11. Reliance is placed upon the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.LP.No.8519 of 2006. That was a taken up case in relation to the steps initiated by the Gujarat Government for removal of small Temples and Shrines constructed on the streets and public places. In the Court order, dated 29.09.2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed interim order as under: As an interim measure, we direct that henceforth no authorized construction shall be carried out or permitted in the name of Temple, Church, Mosque or Gurudwara etc. on public streets, public parks or other public places etc. 12. This was emphasized in the subsequent order dated 07.12.2009. From a perusal of the order referred to above, it is clear that the emphasis was upon the permission being accorded for construction of places of worship on public streets, public parks and other public places. It is not even mentioned as to how a vast extent of poramboke land is a public place. If the land in Survey No.171 is to be treated as public place, by that very reason, the leases granted in favour of the petitioners become untenable. If one applies the principle of “ajusdem generis”, it becomes clear that the public places mentioned in the order must be akin to roads and parks and not waste poramboke lands. Therefore, the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not apply to the facts of the case. 13. Reliance is also placed upon a Circular issued by the State Government, which is to the effect that the mineral bearing areas shall not be assigned as house sites. Firstly it is not alleged that the land alienated in favour of respondents 6 and 7 bears any mineral. 13. Reliance is also placed upon a Circular issued by the State Government, which is to the effect that the mineral bearing areas shall not be assigned as house sites. Firstly it is not alleged that the land alienated in favour of respondents 6 and 7 bears any mineral. Secondly, it is a small extent of Ac.0.08 gutnas out of several acres. Neither the petitioners nor any individuals have submitted an application for grant of lease of the said land. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the impugned order. 14. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.