JUDGMENT : ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J. 1. Perused the order dated 22.03.2021. 2. An affidavit is filed by one Bollineni Ramakrishna stating that out of ignorance, he had started recording the order that was being dictated by the Court. He has also tendered unconditional apology. We are satisfied with the explanation given and close the aforesaid matter. 3. In the present appeal, challenge is laid to a common order dated 05.02.2021 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.6587 and 7597 of 2019, insofar as it pertains to dismissal of W.P.No.6587 of 2019. 4. The appellant is the writ petitioner in W.P.No.6587 of 2019. It was granted a quarry lease for black granite for an extent of Acres 30.00 in Sy.No.123 of Gurijepally Village, Santhamagulur Mandal, Prakasam District. The writ petitioner surrendered an extent of Ac.10.00 to the Department of Mines and Geology, which was accepted by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology vide proceedings dated 06.06.1993. It is the case of the petitioner that lease was renewed from time to time and the same is valid up to 23.06.2028. 5. Prior to the filing of the present writ petition, two writ petitions, being W.P.No.30256 of 2015 and 43585 of 2018, were filed, but narration regarding the cause of action for filing the said cases and outcome may not be necessary for the purpose of this case. 6. The present writ petition came to be filed assailing the order dated 03.05.2019 issued by the Director of Mines and Geology (FAC), wherein it was observed as follows: “In view of the reasons explained above the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole further reported that by virtue of Rules, the representation requesting to accept deletion of Acs.1.28 in the form of two separate/isolated protracted and elongated bits with highly acute triangular form cannot be taken into account and their request for deletion in separate and contrast form cannot be entertained and hence their request is refused. Finally, the Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole requested to issue necessary directions in the matter, since as per the lease deed plan the quarry lease holder M/s. Imperial Granites Private Limited is having an extent of 21.28 Acres as against the actual extent of leased area of 20.00 Acres wherein an excess extent of 1.28 Acres than the quarry lease granted area. It is a fact that, as per survey report M/s. Imperial Granite Pvt. Limited is in occupation of Ac.1.28 cents in addition to their leased area of 20 acres, and hence do not have the right to surrender excess land as per their wish and will. In fact the Mines and Geology Department has the right to demarcate the excess land and delete it as per scientific norms keeping in view safety precautions/ conservation and exploitation of mineral wealth and revenue generation in public interest. Therefore, in view of the orders passed by the Honourable High Court dated 09.04.2018 the Department after careful examination of records available in this office and the proposals of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole and decided to delete the excess area of 1.28 Ac from the virgin area as shown in green hatches which is covered under the quarry lease held by M/s Imperial Granites Private Limited in Sy.No:123 of Gurijepalli village, Santhamagaluru Mandal Prakasam District from the total extent of 21.28 Ac as per the report of the Survey of India, Uppal, Hyderabad and demarcated area shown on 26.2.2019 as per report of the Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole. The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole is directed to demarcate the excess area of Ac 1.28 cents in presence of the quarry ease holder of M/s Imperial Granites Private Limited and take possession of the land and fix the boundaries as per the survey and inspection report conducted and demarcated area shown on 26.2.2019 as per report of the Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole.” 7. The learned single Judge, relying on Rule 35(b) of the Minor Concession Rules, 1960, accepted the contention advanced on behalf of the respondents that the proposal of the writ petitioner for deletion of excess area, in the form of two separate/isolated bits in narrow width strips with protracted sharp and elongated pointed edges which is not contiguous and compact block, is not permissible and that the area to be surrendered by the lessee must be contiguous, compact and accessible, so as to usefully utilize the same. At paragraph 29 of the order under appeal, it was recorded as follows: “29. At paragraph 29 of the order under appeal, it was recorded as follows: “29. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, with regard to W.P.No.6587 of 2019, it is no doubt that the petitioner is one way or the other, evading to surrender excess land more than the leased area, i.e. 20 acres, in possession of the petitioner since long time. Hence, I found no merits in the Writ Petition No.6587 of 2019.” 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that reliance placed by the learned single Judge on Rule 35(b) of the Minor Concession Rules, 1960, is misconceived as there is no such Rule. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also agree that there is no such Rule 35(b). 10. Rule 35(b), as noted by the learned single Judge, reads as follows: “Only contiguous area would be allowed to be surrendered so as ensure that the area left under and existing lease as well as the area surrendered comprise compact block and accessible.” 11. Mr. P. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.4, submits that the matter can be given a quietus if a direction is issued to take the Mining Plan given by the writ petitioner (available at Page 285 of the writ appeal) after surrender of 10 acres, as the base and a further enquiry is directed to be conducted by the Geological Survey of India in the presence of Vigilance and Enforcement Department working under the General Administration Department, to find out the excess Acre 1.28 cents in possession of the writ petitioner, to be surrendered by the writ petitioner. 12. Ms. N. Shoba, learned counsel for the appellant, has no objection and rather, welcomes such a course of action as suggested by Mr. P. Venugopal. 13. Mr. Hrudaya Raj, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, also submitted that he will have no objection to the submissions made by Mr. P. Venugopal and Ms. N. Shoba. 14. Accordingly, the Geological Survey of India, Hyderabad, is directed to conduct an enquiry in the presence of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department under the General Administration Department, taking the Mining Plan at Page 285 as the base, to identify the areas which are in excess of the said Mining Plan. The Geological Survey of India shall conduct the enquiry within a period of four weeks from today. The Geological Survey of India shall conduct the enquiry within a period of four weeks from today. The Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology will communicate this order to the Geological Survey of India, Hyderabad, for doing the needful in terms of this order. Once such identification is done, the appellant shall surrender the areas found in excess of the lease area without any delay. 15. The order of the learned single Judge is set aside insofar as it relates to W.P.No.6587 of 2019. The Writ Appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.