ORDER : 1. As both the Writ Petitions filed by the same petitioner are involving same subject matter, they are being disposed of by this Common Order. Writ Petition No. 6587 of 2019 2. This Writ petition is filed assailing the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent through Proceedings No. 12334/R3-2/2011, dated 03.05.2019 without giving effect to the order of the learned single judge in W.P. No. 30256 of 2015, dated 09.04.2018 of this Court and further without re-course to the application dated 05.09.2014 is illegal and arbitrary and sought consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner to lease the excess land in its favour by setting aside the impugned order, dated 03.05.2019. Writ Petition No. 7597 of 2019 3. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not passing orders granting quarry lease on the application dated 30.03.2007, Government land in Sy. No. 123 and Sy. No. 121/2 of petitioner’s patta land in Gurijepally village, Santhamagulur Mandal, Prakasam District. 4. Heard Smt. M. Sobha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri. P. Venugopal, counsel appearing for Advocate on record for respondent No. 4. 5. Originally the petitioner was granted a quarry lease for Black Granite in Survey No. 123 of Gurijepally village, Santhamagulur Mandal, Prakasam district for an extent of 30.00 acres, by way of transfer in the year 1985, out of which, a land in an extent of Acs. 10.00 was surrendered to the department and the same was accepted by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, vide proceedings dated 06.06.1993. Later the balance area of 20 acres, was renewed for a period of five years by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur vide proceedings dated 21.06.1993. 6. In view of the change of rules, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur issued proceedings dated 11.10.1993 granting lease period from five years to fifteen years, as a result of which, said lease was made valid upto 23.06.2008. Later the same was renewed for a period of 20 years, vide proceedings dated 15.09.2009, hence, the lease is valid upto 23.06.2028. Later the same was renewed for a period of 20 years, vide proceedings dated 15.09.2009, hence, the lease is valid upto 23.06.2028. While so, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 26.08.2015, without considering the request of the petitioner dated 05.09.2014 and without reference to the same even directed the 3rd respondent to demarcate the excess area of Ac. 1.42 cents, which is under possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed Writ Petition questioning the said proceedings in W.P. No. 30256 of 2015, which was disposed of along with W.P. No. 20446 of 2017 filed by the 4th respondent herein/Sri. B. Rama Krishna, for grant of lease for an extent of Ac. 2.47 cents in Sy. No. 123 of Gurijepally village of Santhamagulur Mandal, Prakasam District. 7. After considering the facts of both the Writ Petition, the same was disposed of with the following directions:- “Accordingly, the Writ Petition No. 30256 of 2015 is allowed; the order dated 26.08.2015 in Proceedings No. 12334/R2-2/2011 dt.26.08.2015 of the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad is set aside; the Writ Petition No. 20446 of 2017 is also allowed; the letters Rc. No. A4/412/2015 dated 13.11.2015 and Rc. No. A4/412/2015 dt.26.08.2015 issued by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Ongole, Prakasam District are also set aside; the Additional Surveyor General, Indian Institute of Survey and Mapping, Uppal, Hyderabad-500039 is directed to cause a survey of the land in occupation of the IGPL, after giving notice to IGPL and Sri. B. Rama Krishna, petitioners in both the writ petitions, on payment of expenses for said survey equally by both of them; and then submit report to both parties as well as the Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna District within two (02) months. Subject to the result of said survey, the application for grant of quarry lease made by IGPL for Ac. 1.75 cents in Survey No. 123 of Gurijepally Village, Santhamagalur Mandal of Prakasam District and that made by Sri. B. Ramakrishna for Acs. 2.47 cents in the said survey no. shall be considered in accordance with law, after giving notice to both parties and after passing a reasoned order, which is to be communicated to both parties. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the claims of either party in Writ Petitions.” 8. B. Ramakrishna for Acs. 2.47 cents in the said survey no. shall be considered in accordance with law, after giving notice to both parties and after passing a reasoned order, which is to be communicated to both parties. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the claims of either party in Writ Petitions.” 8. Pursuant to the above directions, a detailed survey was conducted on 12.09.2018 and a report was submitted by the Survey of India. According to the said survey, the total area occupied by the petitioner was Ac. 21.28 cents, subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice on 23.10.2018. 9. The petitioner further submitted that after submitting an explanation on 05.12.2018, but without considering the same the respondents are proceeding to delete the subject area. Questioning the said proceedings, Writ Petition No. 13585 of 2018 is filed and the same was withdrawn subsequently, under the impression that the authorities would consider the request of the petitioner for grant of lease as per the application dated 05.09.2014. 10. Surprise to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has issued impugned orders dated 03.05.2019, without considering the explanations submitted by the petitioner. Hence, the present Writ petition is filed. 11. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent filed counter on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. 12. In the counter the respondents denied all the allegations made against the respondent except those which are specifically admitted in the present counter. The contents of the counter read as follows. 13. The 3rd respondent Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur received an application for grant of quarry lease for Black Granite over an extent of 3.75 acres for a period of 20 years filed by the petitioner in Survey Nos. 123 and 121/2 of Gurijepally Village, Santhamaguluru Mandal, Prakasam district on 30.03.2007. After receipt of application, the 3rd respondent has forwarded one set of application along with applied sketch to the Tahsildar, Santhamaguluru Mandal and requested to furnish report on classification and availability of the area applied by the petitioner. In response to the same, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole vide L. Dis. After receipt of application, the 3rd respondent has forwarded one set of application along with applied sketch to the Tahsildar, Santhamaguluru Mandal and requested to furnish report on classification and availability of the area applied by the petitioner. In response to the same, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole vide L. Dis. D/718/2007, dated 07.06.2007 has informed that, the applied land by the petitioner is situated quite adjacent to the dwelling houses and poultry and also the public are apprehending danger due to blasting of stone and also with the pollution of atmosphere and finally opined that it is not feasible for issue of permission of No Objection Certificate. Hence, the 3rd respondent has recommended for rejection of the said quarry lease application of the petitioner, on 07.07.2007, in turn the 2nd respondent i.e. Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad vide letter dated 20.03.2009 addressed to the District Collector, Prakasam under a copy marked to this office, duly requesting to re-examine the case and again issue necessary instructions to the concerned Tahsildar, Santhamaguluru Mandal of issue of No Objection Certificate to the subject area. When no response from the revenue department, the 2nd respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner vide his orders dated 16.04.2010. Subsequently, the 3rd has received another application for grant of quarry lease for Black Granite over an extent of 1.000 hecatre/2.47 acres for a period of 20 years, from one Sri. B. Rama Krishna, for land in Sy. No. 123 of Gurijepally Village, Santhamaguluru Mandal, vide his application dated 09.07.2009. The 3rd respondent has forwarded one set of application along with applied sketch to the Tahsildar, Santhamaguluru Mandal and requested to furnish report on classification and availability of the area applied by Sri. B. Rama Krishna. With regard to the said application, the Tahsildar, Santhamaguluru Mandal has informed vide proceedings Rc. No. 314/2009, dated 17.03.2010 that the land admeasuring an area of 2.47 acres in Sy. No. 123 of Gurijepally Village, is classified s “Urakonda” and issued No Objection Certificate in favour of Sri. B. Rama Krishna for grant of quarry lease. 14. Subsequently, both, the Writ petitioner as well as the unofficial respondent i.e. Sri. B. Rama Krishna, have filed several Writ Petitions before the composite High Court at Hyderabad, claiming their rights. No. 123 of Gurijepally Village, is classified s “Urakonda” and issued No Objection Certificate in favour of Sri. B. Rama Krishna for grant of quarry lease. 14. Subsequently, both, the Writ petitioner as well as the unofficial respondent i.e. Sri. B. Rama Krishna, have filed several Writ Petitions before the composite High Court at Hyderabad, claiming their rights. Finally, the High Court has disposed of clubbing both the Writ Petitions, directing the Survey and Mining of India to survey the subject land after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as the unofficial respondents, on payment of costs by both the parties equally and consider the applications of the petitioners, in accordance with law and after giving notice to both the parties. 15. In obedience to the orders of the High court passed in Writ Petition No. 30256 of 2015 and 20446 of 2017 a detailed survey was conducted on 17.08.2018 and 18.08.2018 by the officials of Survey of India, Uppal, Hyderabad and submitted a repot on 12.09.2018. Pursuant to the said report, 3rd respondent vide his proceedings dated 20.09.2018 requested the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole to submit a compliance report in the matter. Before that the petitioner has submitted a letter/objection on 19.09.2018, to the survey taken up by the Survey of India, on 17.08.2018 and 18.08.2018 requested to consider only the leased area in possession of the petitioner. Further the 3rd respondent vide memo dated 20.11.2018, enclosing the representation dated 15.11.2018 filed by Sri. B. Rama Krishna, requesting, to take necessary steps in illegal quarry operations of the petitioner in excess area, in Survey No. 123 of Gurijepally Village, as per report submitted by the Survey of India. 16. In this connection, the technical staff and office of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole have inspected the subject area, along with Revenue Department on 21.02.2019 and reported that in obedience of the Memo dated 29.01.2019 of the 2nd respondent and as per the instructions from the 3rd respondent, the officials have attended for field inspection on 21.02.2019 in connection with the deletion of excess area of Ac. 1-28 cents from the existing quarry release area for Black Granite held by the petitioner, on the representation of the petitioner dated 04.01.2019. 17. 1-28 cents from the existing quarry release area for Black Granite held by the petitioner, on the representation of the petitioner dated 04.01.2019. 17. In the counter, the respondents further submitted that on 29.01.2019, the 2nd respondent has forwarded the representation of the petitioner dated 04.01.2019 and directed to take necessary action, in obedience to the same, 3rd respondent has requested the lessee company to attend for field inspection on 21.02.2019. In this connection the joint inspection team has inspected the subject area on 21.02.2019 and reported that, after verification in the field, it is concluded that this way of deletion proposed by the petitioner is not correct by virtue of Rule 35(b) of M.C. Rules 1960 [for short ‘M.C. Rules’] which reads as follows:- “Only contiguous area would be allowed to surrendered so as to ensure that the area left under and existing lease as well as the area surrendered comprise compact block and accessible.” 18. But contrary to the said rule, the petitioner has proposed for deletion of excess area, in the form of two separate/isolated bits in narrow width strips with protracted sharp and elongated pointed edges resembling like highly acute triangular shape which is not contiguous and compact block. In fact, the area proposed to be surrendered by the lessee company must be contiguous, compact and accessible so as to utilize the same for any useful purpose. In the instant case, the petitioner has proposed to delete the excess area in two separate/isolated bits in narrow width stripe, which is not contiguous and compact block, hence, the same is contrary to the rule 35(b) of M.C. Rules, 1960. 19 Moreover, these isolated bits are not accessible as those are intercepted by existing leases held by M/s. Sri. Vishnu Granites in Southern side and M/s. Archana Granites in Western side and these leases are subsurface quarries, and the present depth of quarry is about 30 meters. Physiographically, both isolated proposed bits are plain surface level lands. The quarrying was already done upto 10 to 30 meters depth in the area proposed for deletion in between Pillar No. 10 to 11. Similarly no workings done in the proposed area in between the Pillars 11 to 12. Considering the above aspects, the impugned orders were passed as per the rules. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on two grounds. Similarly no workings done in the proposed area in between the Pillars 11 to 12. Considering the above aspects, the impugned orders were passed as per the rules. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on two grounds. Firstly, the impugned orders are contrary to the notings of the Director while adjudicating the application filed before him by this petition. Under the application made by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, the same was furnished to the petitioner, to said noting reads as follows:- “Case called. Applicant present. Advocate on behalf of Applicant present. Advocate argued that they have submitted the objections for Survey done by Survey of India. They have also submitted objections to SOI. The DMG/Appellate Authority informed Advocate that the surrendering of excess area is at the liberty of the lease holder. He can surrender the land which is in excess of granted area of Ac. 20.00.” 21. In view of the above notings, it is clear that the Director, Appellate Authority informed the advocate that the surrendering of excess area is at the liberty of the lease holder, he can surrender the land which is in excess to area of 20-00 acres. In view of the above notings, it is clear that liberty is given to the petitioner to surrender the excess area, hence the impugned orders, are contrary to the said notings. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, giving liberty to the petitioner, to surrender the excess land. 22. Secondly, contended that the impugned orders were passed contrary to the directions of this Court, in W.P. No. 30256 of 2015, W.P. No. 20446 of 2017, dated 09.04.2018, when the High Court while disposing of the both the writ petitions, directed the authorities to conduct survey and take action accordingly after issuing notice to both the parties. But the impugned orders were passed basing on the inspection report dated 21.02.2019. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without giving notice to the petitioner, and without participation of the petitioner, the alleged inspection was done on 21.02.2019 and the authorities cannot take into consideration to the said report, for passing the impugned orders. But the impugned orders were passed basing on the inspection report dated 21.02.2019. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without giving notice to the petitioner, and without participation of the petitioner, the alleged inspection was done on 21.02.2019 and the authorities cannot take into consideration to the said report, for passing the impugned orders. On the above grounds, the impugned orders dated 03.05.2019 are liable to be set aside and prayed to direct the authorities to reconsider the issue once again for deletion of excess land to Ac. 1-28 cents from the petitioner quarry area. 23. Learned senior counsel appearing for the 4th respondent has submitted that the petitioners are in excavating and doing illegal mining in excess to the leased area since long time, thereby one way or the other, they are interrupting the authorities and they are not allowing the respondents to take the excess land from the petitioner. In fact earlier occasion, the High Court has disposed of both the writ petitions, filed by the petitioner and the unofficial respondents herein, with a direction to Additional Surveyor General, Indian Institute of Survey and Mapping Uppal, Hyderabad after giving notice to the petitioner as well as the unofficial respondents to complete the survey and submit report by the Survey of India. It is not in dispute that after conducting the survey and submitting a report by the Survey of India, the petitioner has filed further objections, and they themselves made a representation, as such considering their representation only further inspection was conducted and the impugned orders were passed taking all the relevant facts into consideration, hence, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is nothing but to drag on the proceedings and not to surrender the excess land to the department as directed by this Court. Hence, the prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition treating it false and vexatious, thereby pleased to vacate the Interim Order, dated 15.05.2019 in the Writ Petition No. 6587 of 2019. 24. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents have vehemently argued that the petitioner is trying to evade the surrendering of excess land. It is no doubt that the petitioner was granted lease only for Ac. 20-00, knowingly they are in excess of Ac. 24. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents have vehemently argued that the petitioner is trying to evade the surrendering of excess land. It is no doubt that the petitioner was granted lease only for Ac. 20-00, knowingly they are in excess of Ac. 1-28 cents and one way or the other they are making efforts to restrain the respondents taking the excess land, which is in possession of the petitioner. In fact as directed by the composite High Court in the Writ Petitions, the Survey of India after conducting survey submitted a report, while taking the action pursuant to the report as per the directions of the High Court, the petitioner has filed objections and made representation on 04.01.2019, basing on the said representation, a joint inspection was conducted on 21.02.2019 and submitted a report. The representatives of the petitioner were also present on the said date on field inspection. 25. Learned Government Pleader has also drawn the attention of the Court and while joint inspection report, the representatives of the petitioner were also signed on the inspection report, which is filed along with to the counter. Hence, contention of the petitioner is that the report relied by the officers i.e. 21.02.2019 is without notice to the petitioner, is baseless far from the truth. In fact they have made objection to the report submitted by the Survey of India and as requested by them, the joint inspection was conducted on 21.02.2019. 26. Further argued that while passing the impugned orders, the authorities by taking all the relevant facts, passed the present impugned orders, and as per the rules, more specifically as per Rule 35(b) M.C. Rules, 1960, only contiguous area would be allowed to surrender so as to ensure that the area left under and existing lease as well as the area surrendered comprise compact block and accessible. Taking into consideration as per the above said rule, the authorities have passed the impugned order with reasons. In view of the above, requested the Court to dismiss the Writ Petition. 27. Taking into consideration as per the above said rule, the authorities have passed the impugned order with reasons. In view of the above, requested the Court to dismiss the Writ Petition. 27. Considering the above submissions made by the counsel, it is no doubt that earlier this Court disposed of the wit petitions with a specific direction to the Survey of India to conduct survey, after issuing of notice to the both the parties and Director of Mines and Geology, subject to the result of the survey, the application of the grant of quarry lease made by the petitioner as well as the unofficial respondent herein, to consider and pass orders. 28. No doubt, pursuant to the above directions, the Survey of India has conducted survey after issuing notice to all the parties, and submitted its report to the authorities for taking further action. But at the intervention of the petitioner, they have conducted one more physical inspection on 21.02.2019, considering the maps filed by the Survey of India, in the presence of the representatives of the petitioner, so also in the presence of all the parties, accordingly, the authorities have considered and passed the impugned orders with reasons. 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. 30. Accordingly the Writ Petition No. 6587 of 2019 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order granted in Writ Petition No. 6587 of 2019 shall stand vacated. 31. With regard to the Writ Petition No. 7597 of 2019 is concerned, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the application made by the petitioner in accordance with the relevant Rules and pass appropriate orders, after issuing notice to all the concerned, within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Wirt Petition No. 7597 of 2019 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 32. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.