JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. - Since both the writ petitions involve similar questions of fact and law, they are taken up together for analogous hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners, who are licensees for the sairat quarries, being aggrieved by the lease agreement cancellation orders dated 13.05.2011 passed by the Tahasildar, Dharmasala under Annexures 5 & 4 respectively, have prayed this Court to : (a) issue appropriate writ/writs against the opp. party; (b) quash the orders dated 13.05.2011 .vide Annexures-5 & 4: and (c) direct the opposite party not to intervene in the operation right of the petitioners as per the terms of the lease agreements. Though the petitioners in both the cases have sought for quashing the order under Annexures-5 & 4 respectively, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners during the course of hearing, filed memos indicating that the petitioners do not want to press the prayers made in these writ petitions and they only pray for issuance of a direction to the opposite party-Tahasildar, Dharmasala to refund the bid amount as well as the expenditure incurred by them towards purchase of stamp duty and payment of registration charges of the agreements in both the cases along with interest. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners indicates the expenditures said to have been incurred by the petitioners in both the case are as follows: In W.P.(C) No.16061 of 2011 Rs. 19,40,000/- deposited towards bid amount Rs. 97,000/- Purchase of stamp duty Rs. 39,060/- expended towards Registration fees In total the petitioner has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 20,76,060/-. In W.P.(C) No.16062 of 2011 Rs. 5,00,000/- deposited towards bid amount Rs. 25,000/- Purchase of stamp duty Rs. 10,260/- expended towards Registration fees Similarly, the petitioner in second case has expended Rs. 5,35,260/-for operation of the sairat in question. 4. The lease agreements in both the cases were cancelled on the ground of not obtaining the forest clearance as the sairats in question are situated within forest land, which finds place in the DLC report. Therefore, Section 2(c) of the Conservation of Forest Act, 1980 is attracted. Such clearance was not obtained by the petitioners as that was not the precondition in the tender auction notice in both the cases. Therefore, Section 2(c) of the Conservation of Forest Act, 1980 is attracted. Such clearance was not obtained by the petitioners as that was not the precondition in the tender auction notice in both the cases. At any rate, it is not the statutory duty on the part of the petitioner-bidders to obtain the forest clearance as the opposite party had identified the sairats in question for the purpose of granting lease-hold right by holding public auction in which the petitioners participated and became the highest bidders and no fault can be attributed to the petitioners in not obtaining the forest clearance for the purpose of giving effect to the lease agreements. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners without pressing for quashing of the orders of cancellation of the lease agreements now requests this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to the opposite party for refund of the aforesaid money expended by them as they do not want to challenge the cancellation of the lease agreements in both the cases and are not interested to carry on quarrying of the sairats in question as it is already delayed. Accordingly, they request this Court for grant of relief stated supra. 4. Mr. Panda, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite party vehemently opposes the prayer sought for by the petitioners in the memos filed in Court today in these proceedings as there is no prayer in this regard in the writ petitions and the petitioners are not entitled to such relief. He further submits that the petitioners were required to obtain forest clearance for the purpose of executing the lease agreements to extract minerals from the sairats in question. Non-obtaining of forest clearance is the valid reason for cancellation of the lease agreements. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get refund of the stamp duty spent on purchase of stamp paper to register the lease agreements on payment of registration fees in both the cases. He further submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to get refund of the aforesaid stamp duty and registration fees as the amount towards stamp duty and registration fee has already gone to the public exchequer. Therefore, the claim made by the petitioners for refund of the amount is not justified. 5. He further submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to get refund of the aforesaid stamp duty and registration fees as the amount towards stamp duty and registration fee has already gone to the public exchequer. Therefore, the claim made by the petitioners for refund of the amount is not justified. 5. On the rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration by this Court are: (i) Whether the petitioners in both the cases are entitled to refund of bid amount, stamp duty and registration expenses as mentioned above? (ii) What order? 6. In our considered view, the petitioners do not want to press the prayer for quashing the tease deed cancellation orders dated 13.5.2011 passed by the opposite party under Annexures-5 & 4 respectively and further, for such cancellation no fault can be attributed to the petitioners. 7. The sairats in question were notified for public auction for grant of lease hold rights under the OMC Rules, 2004. So it was the responsibility of the competent authority to obtain the forest clearance if the sairats in question are within the forest area as per the DLC report. Therefore, the cancellation in both the cases is not legal and valid. However, the petitioners do not want to challenge the same and they request this Court for a direction to the opposite party to refund the bid amount along with the expenditure incurred towards stamp duty and registration fee paid for registration of the lease agreement. The petitioners are entitled to get refund of the amount as they have not got any benefit out of the said lease hold rights by extracting the minerals in respect of both the sairats which are as per DLC report forest areas. 8. In view of the above, we direct the competent authority to refund to the petitioners the amount of stamp duty and the amount of registration fees expended by both the petitioners, as indicated above, within four weeks from today along with interest at the rate of 6% on the said amount. The Tahasildar, Dharmasala is directed to get the amount from the Government for being refunded to the petitioners. If such a request is made by the Tahasildar, the Revenue Department shall consider the same and make the funds available to the opposite party for compliance of our order. 10. The Tahasildar, Dharmasala is directed to get the amount from the Government for being refunded to the petitioners. If such a request is made by the Tahasildar, the Revenue Department shall consider the same and make the funds available to the opposite party for compliance of our order. 10. With the aforesaid directions and observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of. Petition disposed of.