JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 1st October, 2008 passed by the Mines Tribunal in Revision Application No. 13(14)2007-RC-1 marked as Annexure-X. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is clearly set out in paras 56, 57 and 58 which reads as under:- 56. While answering the sixth question which is the vital question, i.e., whether the boundary between the parties measures 64 chains or 71 chains should be set aside, he has pointed out that the two leases of the petitioner and the first respondent are in two different villages and the boundary of the two leases can be decided by deciding the boundary of the two villages. He has further held that the Mines Tribunal is not bound to rely upon any map submitted by the revision applicant or the petitioner on various earlier occasions but the original map prepared and duly registered during the original lease agreement 1959 should be considered. 57. The third member, while referring to the sketch prepared by the Court Commissioner in O.S. 316 of 1989 has measured DE line as 64 chains which can be relied upon subject to condition that the area of mining lease of this petitioner granted in 1959 is not reduced and boundary of two villages - Kallahalli and Vyasanakere -is not altered. After giving his opinion on the sixth question, the third member gravely erred in setting aside the order of survey by the State Government dated 24.02.2007. 58. A perusal of the impugned order, Annesure-X shows that two members, i.e. Sri. A. K. Mehta and Sri. A. K. Singh have passed the so called order per majority and set aside the survey made by the officials which was the subject matter of O.S. 40 of 5 2007 and also held that the area of 50.47 Ha. 58. A perusal of the impugned order, Annesure-X shows that two members, i.e. Sri. A. K. Mehta and Sri. A. K. Singh have passed the so called order per majority and set aside the survey made by the officials which was the subject matter of O.S. 40 of 5 2007 and also held that the area of 50.47 Ha. Upon renewing the mining lease of the petitioner is liable to be granted by conducting fresh survey should be conducted for which the disputed boundary may be taken as 64 chains, provided that the area granted to the respondent No.6 in ML executed in 1959 is not reduced and the area for regrant should be within the original lease area granted in the year 1959 and has also held that during the re-survey, it should be ensured that the boundary between the two villages - Kallahalli and Vyasanakere -is not altered and finally it has directed that the first respondent to withdraw the civil suit O.S. 40 of 2007 within 30 days. This order is being questioned in this writ petition as illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner sought for clarification from the third member whether the respondent can carry on mining operations in the disputed area, even though the order with regard to re-survey of the disputed area has not even begun. There is no response from the third member. 3. The Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 562/2009 in the case of Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Others vs State of Karnataka & Others at para 39 has observed as under:- "We make it clear that we have not understood the above statement as an admission on the part of the Federation and it is on a consideration of the totality of the facts placed before us that we accept the findings of the survey conducted by the Joint Team constituted by the orders of this Court and the boundaries of each of the leases determined on that basis. We further direct that in supersession of all orders either of the authorities of the State or Courts, as may be, the boundaries of leases fixed by the Joint Team will henceforth be the boundaries of each of the leases who will have the benefit of the lease area as determined by the Joint Team. We further direct that in supersession of all orders either of the authorities of the State or Courts, as may be, the boundaries of leases fixed by the Joint Team will henceforth be the boundaries of each of the leases who will have the benefit of the lease area as determined by the Joint Team. All proceedings pending in any court with regard to boundaries of the leases involved in the present proceeding shall stand adjudicated by means of present order and no such question would be open for re-examination by any body or authority". 4. As is clear from the said order all proceedings pending in the Court with regard to boundaries of leases shall stand adjudicated by means of a special order and no question would be opened for reexamination. In view of the said direction of Apex Court in the aforesaid writ petition, this Court cannot adjudicate the dispute raised in this writ petition. The said dispute has already been adjudicated in terms of the aforesaid order. Hence, writ petition is rejected.