Judgment : The 6th respondent herein, by name Smt.Adapa Jhansi Lakshmi, submitted an application to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent herein, through proper channel for grant of mining lease to Black Granite over Ac.9.25 cents of land in Survey Nos.578 and 579 of Chimakurthy Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, in the year 2009. As required under G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 28.05.1998, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Prakasam District, the 3rd respondent herein, forwarded the same to the Tahsildar, Chimakurthy Mandal, the 5th respondent herein, for grant of ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC). The 5th respondent issued proceedings, dated 22.10.2010, granting NOC and forwarded a copy thereof to the District Collector, Prakasam District, the 4th respondent herein, in compliance with the requirement under the G.O. The latter, in turn, addressed a letter, dated 02.01.2010, to the 5th respondent requiring him to once again examine, the availability and desirability of land for grant ofmining lease. Acting on that, the 5th respondent issued proceedings, dated 22.05.2010, granting NOC in favour of the 6th respondent. The petitioner challenges the same. The petitioner contends that she purchased the land in question through a sale deed, dated 17.02.2001, from Smt.Pamidi Subbaratnamma and her vendor enjoyed the rights of ownership so much so, that he was issued pattadar pass book and title deed under the Andhra Pradesh Rights and Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’). The petitioner contends that at one point of time, the 5th respondent issued a certificate to the effect that the lands in Survey Nos.578 and 579 are held in patta. The petitioner ultimately submits that there was absolutely no justification for the 5th respondent in issuing NOC in respect of patta lands. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that their Department has to act according to the NOC issued by the Revenue Department and that they do not have any independent stand on that aspect. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit. According to her, the lands are held by the Government as per the entries in the revenue records. It is, however, admitted that two incumbents, who worked as Mandal Revenue Officers, Chittoor, took different views, as regards classification of the land, and that the matter is under verification. The 6th respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit. According to her, the lands are held by the Government as per the entries in the revenue records. It is, however, admitted that two incumbents, who worked as Mandal Revenue Officers, Chittoor, took different views, as regards classification of the land, and that the matter is under verification. The 6th respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit. According to her, the land in two survey numbers referred to above was held by the Government, throughout. It is stated that even if there exists any sale deed in respect of the Government land, it does not confer any rights upon the purchasers and the pattadar pass book and title deed relied upon by the petitioner cannot be taken into account. Heard Sri K.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology and Sri K.Ram Mohan Mahadeva, learned Counsel for the 6th respondent. Though the Director of Mines and Geology happens to be the authority to grant lease, an applicant must obtain NOC from the Tahsildar in respect of the land applied for. This is provided under G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 28.05.1998. The purpose is to avoid any possibility of leases being granted over the Government lands by treating them as patta lands. Apart from that, the aspect of desirability is also required to be taken into account. Even if there is no dispute, as regards the classification of land and the existence of mineral, sometimes the questions as to whether it is desirable to grant mining lease would assume significance, if the quary is nearer to residential area, the proximate area or whether the mining would have its impact on the environment, and the like, may arise. Though the Tahsildar is the authority conferred with the power to issue NOC, the said G.O. provides for forwarding a copy thereof to the District Collector, within thirty days, to express his view. A presumption is also provided to the effect that, in case the District Collector does not express his view, it shall be deemed that he has no objection for issuance of the certificate. In the instant case, the 5th respondent issued NOC on 22.10.2010 and forwarded a copy of it to the 4th respondent. The latter, in turn, addressed a letter, dated 02.01.2010, to the 5th respondent and requested him to examine the matter once again. In the instant case, the 5th respondent issued NOC on 22.10.2010 and forwarded a copy of it to the 4th respondent. The latter, in turn, addressed a letter, dated 02.01.2010, to the 5th respondent and requested him to examine the matter once again. It is after such an exercise, that the 5th respondent issued the impugned proceedings, dated 22.05.2010. The only ground on which the petitioner challenges the impugned proceedings is that the 5th respondent treated the land in question as owned by the Government, though it is a patta land, even as per the certification issued by his office. The petitioner has filed the copy of sale deed, through which she purchased the land, as well as a copy of pattadar pass book and title deed issued to her vendor. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the mutation of entries in the revenue records was effected in favour of the petitioner. The 5th respondent did not examine the matter from the point of view of private ownership over the land. In case the petitioner or her vendor were treated as owners of the land, the Tahsildar was not entitled to treat it as Government land. If, on the other hand, the documents relied upon by the petitioner are found to be not genuine, a finding in that behalf ought to have been recorded by the Tahsildar, after the petitioner is given an opportunity. In the event of the pattadar pass book issued to the vendor of the petitioner and mutation of entries made in favour of the petitioner being found to be genuine, anyone aggrieved by it, has to canvass the matter before the competent authority under the Act. It is only thereafter that a clear picture would emerge, enabling the Department of Mines and Geology to process the application. Hence, the writ petition is allowed directing that a) the impugned order, dated 22.05.2010, is set aside. b) the 5th respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner as well as to the 6th respondent to put forward their contentions, as regards the classification and the ownership of the land. c) within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, the petitioner and the 6th respondent shall put forward their respective contentions together with the necessary documentary proof. c) within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, the petitioner and the 6th respondent shall put forward their respective contentions together with the necessary documentary proof. Thereupon, the 5th respondent shall record a finding as to whether the pattadar pass book and title deed issued to the vendor of the petitioner and the mutation of entries made in favour of the petitioner are genuine or not. d) if it emerges that the pattadar pass book and title deed as well as the mutation of entries in favour of the petitioner are genuine, it shall be open to the 6th respondent to submit a representation/revision before the Joint Collector, Prakasam District, under Section 9 of the Act. e) the nature of steps to be taken by the Department of Mines and Geology on the application of the 6th respondent would depend upon the outcome of the exercise, indicated above. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.