Judgment :- (Per BPR,J) The above Writ Petition was posted before us by the Learned Single Judge since the point involved in the case is with regard to interpretation of Rule 9-N of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 dealing with authorized ramps. The learned Single judge of this Hon’ble Court , in W.P.No.25793 of 2008, vide Order dt. 30-4-2009, has held that consent of Mandal Revenue Officer is necessary for permitting new ramps whereas it has been argued by the Counsel for Respondents that where The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Rivers Conservancy Act, 1884 (for short the Act, 1884) applies, it is only the River Conservator who should permit new ramps and that there is no need for obtaining the consent of Mandal Revenue Officer concerned. It is further argued by the Counsel for Respondents that it is only in respect of Government lands that the consent of Mandal Revenue Officer becomes necessary. Since the earlier judgment seeks for obtaining consent of M.R.O, the leaned Single Judge referred the matter to this Bench for adjudication of the matter. Heard Sri V.C.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Mines and Geology and Smt.N.Shobha, for the respondents. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that petitioner has filed writ petition questioning the order of the 2nd respondent dated 14-9-2009 made in Proc.No.1006/Q/2009 permitting the third respondent to use new ramps at KM 12.800 to KM 13.000 of Theeparru Sand Reach. The writ petitioner is the lease holder in respect of Pendyala and Kanur Reach for which leasehold rights were granted in his favour and the same is valid up to 31-3-2011. The third respondent in the writ petition was the leaseholder for Theeparru Sand Reach between KM 12.800 to 13.000 for which ramp point was shown at 15/200 – 15/400 KMs and the said lease is valid upto 31-3-2011. The complaint of the writ petitioner is that if new ramp is permitted in favour of third respondent, it will result in loss to his business and requested the official respondents not to g rant any such permission unless and until his objection is considered. The complaint of the writ petitioner is that if new ramp is permitted in favour of third respondent, it will result in loss to his business and requested the official respondents not to g rant any such permission unless and until his objection is considered. But without considering the representation of the petitioner, impugned proceedings were issued permitting the third respondent to use the ramp in between 12.800 KMs to 13.000 KMs of VRB within the limits of Kanuru Agraharam. The counsel for the petitioner contends that for granting permission for new ramp, consent of Mandal Revenue Officer is mandatory and as such the River Conservator does not have any power to issue letter granting no objection to operate all ramps in between KM 12.800 to 13.800 of VRB in Kanuru. He also relied on the Judgment of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.25793 of 2008 wherein the leaned Judge has held that consent of Mandal Revenue Officer is mandatory whereas the learned Government Pleader states that as per Rule 9 N, in respect of lands which are covered by the Act, 1884, it is only the River Conservator who is competent and empowered to grant permission for new ramps and the consent of Mandal Revenue Officer becomes necessary only in case where the lands belong to Government. He contends that, in the instant case, the land in question is covered under the Act, 1884 and as such the River Conservator has granted no objection for permitting new ramps at KM 12.800 to 13.000 and accordingly the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology has issued proceedings permitting the lessee to use said ramps. It was also stated that as per the site conditions, it was not feasible for the lease holder to use the ramps which were shown in the notification and the River Conservator came to the conclusion that the ramp points existing at KMs 12.8000 to 13.000 may permitted by further stating that the objections of the petitioner have also been considered. The learned Counsel for the third respondent contended that since it was not feasible and possible to use the ramps as notified in the auction notice, the their respondent represented to the official respondents requesting for permission to use the new ramps. The learned Counsel for the third respondent contended that since it was not feasible and possible to use the ramps as notified in the auction notice, the their respondent represented to the official respondents requesting for permission to use the new ramps. The River Conservator after making inspection and considering the prevailing site conditions, came to the conclusion that the ramps notified in the auction are not feasible and the ramps proposed by the lease holder are also not feasible and after considering the entire matter, came to the conclusion that new existing ramps between KM 12.800 to 13.000 can be permitted. Basing on the same, the 2nd respondent passed order dated 14-9-2009 and there is absolutely no illegality in the same, since as per Rule 9 N it is only the River Conservator who is competent to grant permission in respect of the lands which are covered by the Act, 1884. The point that arises for consideration before us is whether the consent of Mandal Revenue Officer is necessary for permitting formation of new ramp in respect of the lands for which the Act, 1884 applies. Rule 9-N of A.P Minor Mineral Concession Rules states that…”The lessee should make use of authorized ramps and paths only for transportation of sand from the quarry and not open any new ramps or paths. However any new ramps can be permitted by the concerned Assistant Director of Mines & Geology only with the consent of concerned Mandal Revenue Officer in case of Government Land and River Conservator where the Act, 1884 applies and in case of patta lands with the consent of the Pattedar duly verifying the claims supported by certification issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned”. On a bare reading of the above rule, it follows that the requirement is of a permission from the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology with the consent of both the different authorities viz., Mandal Revenue Officer and River Conservator, both of which have to act in their parameters and jurisdiction viz., that of the Government land and the area where the provisions of the Act, 1884 attracts. Therefore, apart from the basic requirement, which is necessary from that of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, it should be preceded by the consent from the concerned jurisdiction which has jurisdiction. Therefore, apart from the basic requirement, which is necessary from that of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, it should be preceded by the consent from the concerned jurisdiction which has jurisdiction. The petitioner is amply clear by pointing out the jurisdiction of these two authorities in two different areas viz., it happens to be a Government land, it is the Mandal Revenue Officer where as it happens to be an area where the provisions of the River Conservation extent, it is only the River Conservator. Therefore, in respect of a Government land the question of River Conservator does not arise and in respect of the area covering with the Act, 1884 the Mandal Revenue Officer cannot have any say. Even otherwise the legislature has enacted two different parallel enactments in respect of the land belonging to the Government and the areas covered therein. Therefore, one cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the other nor it cannot be said that one has permission or jurisdiction to extend beyond its limitations as provided under the respective laws. Neither the learned Government Pleader nor the counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents has pointed out in their provisions or law, much less, the provisions of the very the Act, 1884 or that of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 to show that there is any extension of jurisdiction viz-a-vis. In the circumstances, it can safely be taken that wherever ramps have to be put again afresh in the river, it is only the River Conservator who steps in but not the Mandal Revenue Officer. In Vijay Narayan Thatte and Others v. State of Maharashtra and others 2009 (6) SCJ 957 = 2009 (6) ALD 59 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considering the principles of interpretation of statutes held “Literal rule of interpretation- departure from, not permissible, unless language of statute ambiguous and not clear – Land Acquisition Act 1894, Sections 6 Proviso (ii) and 4 (1).” As per the above Rule, it is clear that Assistant Director of Mines & Geology can permit opening of new ramps with the consent of Mandal Revenue Officer in case of Government lands in cases where the Act, 1884 applies, it is the River Conservator who has to give consent and in case of patta lands, the consent of pattadars concerned is necessary. In the instant case, since the new ramp to be formed is located in the area which is covered by the Act, 1884, consent of Mandal Revenue Officer, according to our view, is not necessary. The ramps are used for transportation of quarried sand. The River Conservator is competent authority to permit the usage of ramps where the River Conservancy Act applies. Whenever the River Conservator grants permission for usage of the ramps, the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology shall permit usage of said ramps. The consent of the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer is not required as the leased area is not in the Government/Patta lands. As per Rule 9 (N) of the Rules, the consent of the Mandal Revenue Officer/Pattedar is necessary only when the leased area falls in the Government/Patta land. In the instant case, the official respondents have categorically stated that land in question falls under the Act, 1884 and the River Conservator has given consent and that the consent of Mandal Revenue Officer is not required since it is neither a Government land nor a patta land. Having regard to the above clear position, we are of the view that in the instant case, the River Conservator is the only competent authority to permit usage of ramps and the consent of Mandal Revenue Officer is not necessary. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the judgment rendered in W.P.No.25793 of 2008 since rule position was not properly interpreted in the said judgment. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. Reference is ordered accordingly. No costs.