ORDER: The parties in both the writ petitions are more or less same and facts involved are also identical and hence, the two writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. W.P.No.26084/2015 is filed questioning the inaction of official respondents, particularly respondents 4, 5 & 7, in taking action against respondent No.10 from interfering with mining operations of the petitioner in respect of Ac.13.30 cents in East Kanupuru Village, Chillakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District in spite of several representations of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to respondents 4, 5 & 7 to take necessary action against respondent No.10. 3. Whereas, W.P.No.1962/2019 is filed by the petitioner challenging the lease determination proceedings No.154247/R3-1/2016 dated 11.12.2018 issued by the Director of Mines & Geology, A.P./2nd respondent as illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to carry out mining operations in mining lease land of Ac. 13.30 cents (5.382 Hect) in S.No.1/47 (new) [1/7 old] and 1/8B of East Kanupuru Village. 4. The petitioner’s case succinctly is thus: (a) As per averments in W.P.No.26084/2015, on 01.10.2004, the petitioner company applied for grant of mining lease of silica sand in an extent of Ac. 102.67 cents in S.No.1/47 and 1/80 of East Kanupuru Village for 20 years to 4th respondent. After following due procedure, the 4th respondent vide proceedings in Dis.No.784/2004 dated 31.05.2005 informed that out of Ac.102.67 cents applied by the petitioner company, an extent of Ac.10.05 cents in S.No.1/47 and Ac.3.25 cents in S.No.1/8P totalling Ac.13.30 cents was available for granting mining lease. The petitioner submitted mining plan and subsequently the 2nd respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.213 dated 01.08.2006 granting mining lease over an extent of Ac.13.30 cents in S.Nos.1/47 and 1/8P of East Kanupuru Village for 20 years. When there was delay for execution of the lease deed, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23010/2012 which was disposed of on 04.10.2012 with a direction to the respondents to complete the formality of execution of mining lease deed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.213. Accordingly, the 4th respondent executed mining lease deed on 17.10.2013 and ever since the petitioner company has been conducting mining operations. (b) While so, the 10th respondent company which has nothing to do with the petitioner’s leasehold land filed O.S.No.34/2015 against the petitioner and its partners seeking injunction and also exparte injunction and the said petition was ultimately dismissed. Accordingly, the 4th respondent executed mining lease deed on 17.10.2013 and ever since the petitioner company has been conducting mining operations. (b) While so, the 10th respondent company which has nothing to do with the petitioner’s leasehold land filed O.S.No.34/2015 against the petitioner and its partners seeking injunction and also exparte injunction and the said petition was ultimately dismissed. Even then the 10th respondent interfered with petitioner’s mining operation with the aid of rowdy elements and damaged the road leading from mining operations point to the main road. Even thereafter also, the 10th respondent has been continuously meddling with petitioner’s mining operations. The petitioner lodged a criminal complaint before the 9th respondent and forwarded copy to Superintendent of Police, Nellore/8th respondent, but of no avail. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation dated 24.04.2015 to the District Collector, Nellore/5th respondent, however, no action has been taken by him. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13708/2015 before the High Court of A.P. wherein the Court directed to submit the action taken by the 5th respondent. In turn, the 5th respondent addressed to respondents 4 & 7 to take necessary action against the 10th respondent. Even then there was no action and therefore, the petitioner submitted successive representations dated 12.06.2015, 07.07.2015, 10.08.2015 and 14.08.2015 to respondents 4, 5 & 7 but no steps have been taken by them. In the meanwhile, the 10th respondent is continuously interrupting the petitioner’s mining operations. Hence, the writ petition No.26084/2015. 5. W.P.No.1962/2019 is concerned, the petitioner’s case is that in W.P.No.26084/2015 the Tahsildar, Chilakur Mandal/7th respondent filed counter, wherein he stated that during enquiry M/s. Krishnapatnam Infra Tech Private Limited (6th respondent) informed that APIIC (7th respondent) handed over an extent of Ac. 4731.15 cents in East Kanupuru and Vellapalem Villages of Chillakur Mandal and in Kottapatnam, Karlapudi and Siddavaram Villages of Kota Mandal on 29.05.2009 and 22.10.2010 respectively for establishment of multipurpose SEZ/industrial park and accordingly, the said lands were registered in favour of 6th respondent on 28.09.2009 and 15.10.2010 respectively. Basing on the said counter of Tahsildar, Chillakur in W.P.No.26084/2015, a learned single Judge passed an interim order dated 04.11.2015 to the effect that it would be appropriate for the District Collector, Nellore to resolve the issue by holding meetings with both parties so as to negotiate an amicable settlement if possible. The said exercise shall be completed expeditiously and report thereof shall be placed before the Court. The said exercise shall be completed expeditiously and report thereof shall be placed before the Court. Pursuant to the said order, the District Collector convened meeting on 07.12.2015 with the petitioner and 6th respondent company, Assistant Director of Mines & Geology and the Tahsildar, Chillakur and heard them. Later, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the District Collector, Nellore instead of submitting a report as ordered by the High Court, himself passed an order in Rc.No.E12/547/2015 dated 23.12.2015 holding that registration of the land from APIIC to M/s. Krishnapatnam Infra Tech Private Limited, Hyderabad, will prevail over the registration of mining lease deed in favour of the petitioner company and further directed the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology to consult the Director of Mines & Geology and come out with a proposal within three months to compensate the writ petitioner and for cancelation of mining lease deed as those lands were already registered in favour of 6th respondent herein. Thereafter, the District Collector submitted the report before the High Court on 20.01.2016. Basing on which, learned single Judge passed a docket order dated 27.01.2016 to the effect that the compensation proposals can well be determined within one month and directed the mining authorities to act upon the report of the District Collector and place before the Court the proposals by the next date of hearing. (a) While the matter stood thus, basing on the recommendations of the District Collector dated 23.12.2015 the Director of the Mines & Geology/2nd respondent issued notice dated 29.05.2016 to the writ petitioner to show cause as to why the lease in question should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply and requested to drop the proceedings. However, the 2nd respondent passed impugned order in D.Dis. proceedings No.154247/R3-1/2016 dated 11.12.2018 cancelling the quarry lease held by the petitioner company on the ground that it was granted under mistake of fact. Hence, the writ petition No.1962/2019. 6. In W.P.No.26084/2015 respondents filed counters. (a) Respondents 1 to 4 filed counter stating that the petitioner filed application for grant of mining lease for Silica Sand over an extent of Ac.102.67 cents respondent No.4 requested respondent No.7 to issue NOC and respondent No.7 vide letter in D.Dis.No.(A)/794/2004 dated 31.05.2005 furnished report stating that Ac.13.30 cents in Sy.Nos.1-47 and 1-8P in East Kanupuru Village was available. (a) Respondents 1 to 4 filed counter stating that the petitioner filed application for grant of mining lease for Silica Sand over an extent of Ac.102.67 cents respondent No.4 requested respondent No.7 to issue NOC and respondent No.7 vide letter in D.Dis.No.(A)/794/2004 dated 31.05.2005 furnished report stating that Ac.13.30 cents in Sy.Nos.1-47 and 1-8P in East Kanupuru Village was available. Basing on the said report proposals were submitted and accordingly mining lease was granted vide G.O.Ms.No.213, Industries and Commerce (M.I-2), dated 01.08.2006 subject to the condition to submit consent from AP Pollution Control Board and Environmental Clearance from the Government and also subject to petitioner producing certain documents within six months. There was a delay on the part of the petitioner in furnishing the documents. While furnishing the documents he made representations to the authorities to execute the lease deed. Later he filed W.P.No.23010/2012 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to issue direction to the authorities to execute the lease deed. The said W.P. was allowed and later the petitioner filed contempt case for not implementing the direction. (b) While forwarding the representation dated 28.08.2010 of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent instructed the 4th respondent to submit a detailed report along with sketch showing whether the subject area falls under SEZ or not. The 4th respondent addressed to the 5th respondent vide letter No.3671/M/2004, dated 30.07.2012 to clarify on this aspect. In that context the 7th respondent addressed to the 6th respondent a letter No.235/2009, dated 27.07.2012 reporting that an extent of Ac.10.05 cents in Sy.No.1/47 and Ac.3.25 cents in Sy.No.1/8Pin East Kanupuru Village i.e., the land granted under Mining Lease vide G.O.Ms.No.213 is not covered under Krishnapatnam Port and SEZ. Thereafter mining lease was executed by the 4th respondent vide proceedings No.3671/M/2004, dated 17.10.2013 for the lease period 17.10.2013 to 16.10.2033. (c) It is stated that the 10th respondent addressed a letter dated 01.04.2015 to the 4th respondent enclosing copy of the order issued by Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur dated 27.03.2015 in I.A.No.125/2015 in O.S.No.34/2015. However later the writ petitioner filed a copy of order dated 16.04.2015 stating that the injunction order earlier granted in favour of the 10th respondent was vacated. The petitioner has been granted lease over an extent of Ac.13.30 cents in Sy.No.1/47 and 1/8P, East Kanupuru and he is conducting operations. However later the writ petitioner filed a copy of order dated 16.04.2015 stating that the injunction order earlier granted in favour of the 10th respondent was vacated. The petitioner has been granted lease over an extent of Ac.13.30 cents in Sy.No.1/47 and 1/8P, East Kanupuru and he is conducting operations. It is finally submitted that on the representations of petitioner as well as 10th respondent claiming the subject area, the 4th respondent addressed letter to 7th respondent requesting to furnish specific report and the same is pending. (d) The 4th respondent filed additional counter stating that the 10th respondent informed that APIIC has handed over an extent of Ac. 4731.15 cents situated in East Kanupuru, Vellapalem village of Chillakur Mandal on 02.09.2008, 20.09.2008 and 03.10.2008 for establishment of SEZ/Industrial Park and subsequently those lands were registered in favour of 10th respondent. The said land includes the subject mining lease area granted in favour of the petitioner. (e) It is further stated that following the order dated 04.11.2015 of this Court, the District Collector resolved the issue that the registration of the land in favour of 10th respondent prevails over the mining lease deed in favour of the petitioner and directed the 4th respondent to come up with a proposal within three months to compensate the petitioner for cancellation of mining lease deed. This Court gave an order dated 21.02.2016 directing the mining authorities to act upon the order of the District Collector, Nellore and place proposals before the Court by the next date of hearing. In the meanwhile the 3rd respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the lease should not be cancelled and the same is pending. 7. The 7th respondent filed counter stating as follows: (a) On the application of the 4th petitioner, the respondent requested the 7th respondent to issue NOC vide letter dated 01.10.2004. The then M.R.O, Chillakur vide D.Dis.A704/2004, dated 31.05.2005 has recommended for grant of mining lease of Silica Sand over an extent of Ac.10.05 cents and Ac.3.25 cents in Sy.No.1-47 and Sy.No.1-8P respectively of East Kanupuru. The petitioner was asked to submit approved mining plan within six months. The Joint Director approved the mining plan vide letter No.41031/6 v3(2)/2005, dated 27.03.2006 and granted mining lease for 20 years in favour of the petitioner on the condition that the petitioner should obtain consent from A.P Pollution Control Board. The petitioner was asked to submit approved mining plan within six months. The Joint Director approved the mining plan vide letter No.41031/6 v3(2)/2005, dated 27.03.2006 and granted mining lease for 20 years in favour of the petitioner on the condition that the petitioner should obtain consent from A.P Pollution Control Board. The State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority issued environmental clearance in favour of the company vide proceedings dated 13.02.2009. (b) While so in pursuance of the orders of District Collector, Nellore in RCE9/3907, dated 03.09.2008 and RCE9/3888/2008, dated 02.09.2008 the Tahsildar, Chillakur handed over Government Land to an extent of Ac.1648.73 cents of East Kanupuru Village along with other lands measuring Ac.650.05 cents in Vellapalem Village to APIIC and submitted report dated 02.02.2012 to the District Collector, as the petitioner company has not commenced mining operations. While so, the present writ petition filed W.P.No.23010/2012 dated 04.12.2012 for issuing of mining lease deed and the said petition was allowed with a direction to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology to execute the lease deed. Ultimately after filing of contempt petition, mining lease deed was executed on 17.10.2013. (c) Sometime thereafter disputes arose between the writ petitioner and 10th respondent for its interference with the mining activities and civil suits were also filed. Later the 10th respondent filed objections for mining activities of the writ petitioner on the ground that the APIIC has handed over an extent of Ac.4731.15 cents in East Kanupuru and other villages by way of sale deeds for establishment of multipurpose SEZ/Industrial Park and those lands were under its possession and therefore writ petitioner has no right to conduct mining operations. Thereafter the present writ petitioner filed W.P.No.26084/2015. The writ petition may be dismissed accordingly. 8. The 10th respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition. (a) The APIIC allotted Ac.2686.77 cents of land in different villages to this respondent in the year 2009 and executed sale deed dated 09.10.2009 for valuable consideration for development of multipurpose SEZ and respondent No.10 is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. The petitioner company has been interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of Ac.99.97 cents in Sy.No.10/1, 1/7P and 1/8 of East Kanupuru Village. The petitioner company has been interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of Ac.99.97 cents in Sy.No.10/1, 1/7P and 1/8 of East Kanupuru Village. Hence this respondent filed O.S.No.34/2015 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur and in I.A.No.125/2015 temporary injunction was granted and later it was vacated on the technical ground of non-compliance of the mandate under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. This respondent filed CMA before the District Court, Nellore and the same is pending. (b) In an extent of Ac.38.56 cents of land in Sy.No.1/8 which was sold to this respondent, the petitioner started interfering under the guise of lease to an extent of Ac.13.25 cents in Sy.No.1/47 and 1/8P. The writ petition is not maintainable under law and hence liable to be dismissed. 9. Petitioner filed reply affidavits to the above counters. 10. Similar type of counters are filed by the respondents in W.P.No.1962/2019. 11. The APIIC/7th respondent filed counter stating thus: (a) An extent of Ac.4731.15 cents of Government Land was taken possession from the revenue authorities in two spells for onward allotment to 6th respondent. The APIIC issued allotment orders for an extent of Ac.2682.77 cents on 23.09.2009 @ Rs.1.15 lakhs per acre and other charges. Sale deed 28.09.2009 was executed under the 1st phase of SEZ. (b) Subsequently, the Head Office issued orders dated 04.09.2010 for allotment of Ac.1726.95 cents of Government land and Ac.321.43 cents of Patta land at different costs. The sale deeds were executed on 15.09.2010. 12. Heard arguments of Sri Hemandranath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in both writ petitions; learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology and Industries and Commerce; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue; Sri J. Ugranarasimha, learned Standing Counsel for respondent 7 in W.P.No.1962/2019 and Sri Ginjupalli Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent 10 in W.P.No.20684/2015. 13. While severely expostulating the lease determination proceedings dated 11.12.2018 passed by the Director of Mines and Geology/2nd respondent on the sole ground that the mining lease was granted under mistake of fact, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Hemandranath Reddy would argue that the order impugned is arbitrary, capricious and legally untenable. 13. While severely expostulating the lease determination proceedings dated 11.12.2018 passed by the Director of Mines and Geology/2nd respondent on the sole ground that the mining lease was granted under mistake of fact, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Hemandranath Reddy would argue that the order impugned is arbitrary, capricious and legally untenable. He would submit that if the chronology of events which began with lease application filed by the petitioner and culminated in lease cancellation order are logically and legally scrutinized, one can easily conclude that the petitioner always stood prior in point of time than the 10th respondent and therefore the question of granting lease in favour of the petitioner under mistake of fact at the inception itself does not arise. 14. In expatiation, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner submitted lease application way back on 01.10.2004 and on reference by the Assistant Director of Mines, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Chillakur after due enquiry issued NOC on 31.05.2005 itself. Thereafter the Government have issued proceedings and also G.O.Ms.No.213, dated 01.08.2006 granting mining lease for Silica Sand in respect of aforesaid extent for 20 years subject to petitioner obtaining consent for establishment (NOC) from A.P. Pollution Control Board and Environmental Clearance from the Government of India. The petitioner accordingly obtained consent order on 20.03.2009 from the A.P. Pollution Control Board and made several representations to the Mining Authorities to execute lease deed in his favour pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.213. Even thereafter, when the Mining Authorities did not execute the lease deed in his favour, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.23010/2012 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for a direction to the authorities. Referring to the said writ petition, learned counsel argued that the Mining Authorities as well as Revenue Authorities were arrayed as respondents in the said writ petition and they filed counter wherein, for the first time, they took a plea that the execution of the lease deed has to be viewed from the point of view of the needs of proposed Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and other requirements. He argued that all such pleas were set aside by the Court as untenable and held that a right was accrued in favour of the petitioner which cannot be taken away for the delay on the part of the Government Departments or other agencies and accordingly directed the Mining Authorities to execute the lease deed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.213, dated 01.08.2006 within four weeks. Learned counsel thus emphasized that long back the High Court, negatived the contentions of the respondents that the subject land might be required for establishment of SEZ. Unfortunately, the District Collector who submitted report to this Court has not referred to the said important observation of this Court and simply noted that since the sale deeds in favour of the 10th respondent were earlier than the execution of the lease in favour of the petitioner, the sale deeds will prevail over the lease deed in terms of Section-47 of the Registration Act which is legally untenable. Learned counsel further argued, even after the Court’s order the mining authorities committed inordinate delay and it was only after filing contempt petition, the lease deed was executed in his favour by the Assistant Director on 17.10.2013. In the meanwhile, probably the APIIC might have requisitioned for lands for establishment of SEZ and Industrial Parks and on the orders of the Government, the Collector Nellore might have allotted thousands of acres of land to APIIC and the APIIC might have executed the sale deeds in favour of the 10th respondent in the year 2009 with which the petitioner is not concerned. Ever since the execution of the lease deed, the petitioner started mining operations and he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the allotted lands of Ac.13.30 cents in two survey numbers without any let or hindrance. It is only when the 10th respondent, on the strength of the sale deeds tried to interfere with his lands and petitioner’s complaints to the police, revenue and mining authorities did not fructify, he filed W.P.No.26084/2015. In the said writ petition this Court called for a report of the Collector having regard to the fact that mining leased lands were also subject matter of sale deeds in favour of the 10th respondent. In the said writ petition this Court called for a report of the Collector having regard to the fact that mining leased lands were also subject matter of sale deeds in favour of the 10th respondent. Instead of stating that the petitioner was first in point of time in view of the fact mining application was filed in the year 2004 and G.O.Ms.No.213 was issued in the year 2006 which crystallized his right, the Collector only considered the dates of sale deeds on one hand and the date of mining lease on the other and unjustly reported as if the sale deeds were prior in point of time and illegally resolved the issue by directing the mining authorities to pay compensation to the petitioner and cancel the mining lease. Learned counsel argued that in the entire process, the Collector has committed grave mistake by ignoring the efficacy of the G.O.Ms.No.213 which was earlier in point of time than the sale deeds and created legal right in favour of the petitioner. Further referring to G.O.Ms.No.213, learned counsel would strenuously submit that though not the said G.O. can be equated with the mining lease deed in the matter of creation of full-fledged right to mine the allotted lands, however the legal efficacy of the said G.O cannot be undermined. The G.O. was issued by the Government after thorough enquiry on the mining application and after conducting survey of the subject lands. The G.O thus spells out the intention of the Government to lease the subject land of Ac.13.30 cents in favour of the petitioner for a period for 20 years subject to certain conditions. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary and others, 2014 (9) SCC 516 to contend that in similar circumstances while assessing the legal efficacy of “allocation letters” issued by the Central Government in favour of the beneficiaries of the coal blocks for different States, the Apex Court observed that though the allocation letters by themselves do not authorise the allottees to win or mine the coal but they do confer an important right upon the allottees to apply for grant of prospecting license or mining lease. In the instant case also, he continued, on the strength of the G.O. issued by the Government, the petitioner could compel the mining authorities to execute mining lease in his favour. In the instant case also, he continued, on the strength of the G.O. issued by the Government, the petitioner could compel the mining authorities to execute mining lease in his favour. Most importantly in W.P.No. 23010/2012 also this Court directed the mining authorities to execute the lease deed as contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.213. Thus, while reckoning the time between the petitioner and 10th respondent to know who was earlier, the G.O. cannot be ignored. In that view the Collector’s report is legally unsustainable. 15. Learned counsel finally argued that the observations dated 27.01.2016 by a learned single Judge on the Collector’s report is unfortunate and unwarranted because the said observation would give inference as if the Court accepted the report of the Collector and reduced the time granted to mining authorities from three months to one month to act upon the report of the Collector. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of proving that the report of the Collector was legally unsustainable. Therefore the said observation of the Court has severely prejudiced the interest of the petitioner in this case. Relying upon the decision in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra, 2018(3) SCC 412 learned counsel recited the principle Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit which means the act of Court shall prejudice none. He would therefore argue that the observation dated 27.01.2016 of learned single Judge of this Court during the pendency of the matter may be ignored and the writ petitions may be decided on their merit. He thus prayed to allow the writ petitions. 16. The argument of officials respondents is more or less similar. Learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology and Industries and Commerce would strenuously argue that there was absolutely no fault on the part of the Mining Department inasmuch as, mining application of the petitioner was promptly referred to Tahsildar, Chillakur Mandal to issue NOC and he, in his letter dated 31.05.2005, informed that out of the applied area only Ac.13.30 cents in Sy.No.1/47 and 1/8 in East Kanupuru was available and basing on the said report proposals were submitted and the Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.213, dated 01.08.2006 and granted mining lease in favour of the petitioner subject to his obtaining NOC certificate from A.P. Pollution Control Board and Environmental Clearance from the Government. The petitioner obtained clearance certificates in the year 2009 and when there was some delay in execution of the lease, he also filed W.P.No. 23010 of 2012 and obtained directions from the Court to the Mining Authorities. Before execution of the lease deed once again the Mining Department forwarded the representation of the petitioner to the Revenue Department and sought for report along with sketch as to whether the subject mining lands fall under SEZ or not. On that occasion also the Tahisildar, Chillakur addressed a letter dated 27.07.2009 that the lands granted under mining lease are not covered under Krishnapatnam Port and SEZ. In view of such clarification, the lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 17.10.2013. There was no mistake of fact on the part of the Mining Department. 17. The argument on behalf of Revenue Department is that when the Mining Department sought for NOC, the then Tahsildar, Chillakur has submitted a report dated 27.07.2009 as if the Mining Lease Lands were not covered and handed over to APIIC/M/s. Krishnapatnam Infra Tech Private Limited, Hyderabad. However, it was a faulty report and because of the said faulty report, the same parcels of the land to an extent of Ac.13.30 cents covered by two survey numbers i.e., 1/47 and 1/8 were parallelly processed for two different purposes and subsequently culminated in registration also. It is further argued by the Government Pleader for Revenue that at any rate since the sale deeds in favour of 10th respondent are prior in point of time than the lease deed, sale deeds will prevail over the lease deed as per Section 47 of the Registration Act. Hence, the Collector, Nellore submitted his report to the Court stating that he gave three months time to Mining Authorities to come up with proposal to compensate the petitioner and to cancel the lease deed. Sri J. Ugranarasimha, learned Standing Counsel for APIIC and Sri Ginjupalli Subba Rao, learned counsel for 10th respondent also addressed arguments in similar lines. 18. The points for consideration are (1) whether the District Collector, Nellore committed grave error in omitting to consider the effect of G.O.Ms.No.213, Industries and Commerce [M.I(2)], dated 01.08.2006 in deciding the seniority between the mining lease of the writ petitioner and sale deeds of the 10th respondent and if so, whether his report dated 20.01.2016 is legally sustainable? 18. The points for consideration are (1) whether the District Collector, Nellore committed grave error in omitting to consider the effect of G.O.Ms.No.213, Industries and Commerce [M.I(2)], dated 01.08.2006 in deciding the seniority between the mining lease of the writ petitioner and sale deeds of the 10th respondent and if so, whether his report dated 20.01.2016 is legally sustainable? (2) Whether the order in D.Dis.No.154247/R3-1/2016 dated 11.12.2018 of the Director of Mines and Geology cancelling the mining lease of the petitioner on the ground that the lease was granted under the mistake of fact is legally sustainable ? (3) To what relief 19. Point Nos.1 and 2: Since the facts and law relating to these two points are intertwined, they are taken up together. 20. I gave my anxious consideration to the pleadings and arguments. Admittedly the petitioner company applied for grant of mining lease of Silica Sand in an extent of Ac.102.67 cents in Sy.Nos.1/47 and 1/8P of East Kanupuru Village by an application dated 01.10.2004 to the 4th respondent. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology referred the application of the petitioner to the Tahsildar, Chillakur Mandal for issuing NOC. The letter in D.Dis.No. No.(A)/794/2004, dated 31.05.2005 addressed by the M.R.O., Chillakur to the District Collector, Nellore and R.D.O., Gudur a copy of which is filed along with material papers in W.P.No.1962 of 2019 would show that after due enquiry, the Tahsildar found that out of applied area of Ac.102.67 cents in Sy.Nos.1/1, 1/7 and 1/8P of East Kanupuru Village only Ac.10.05 cents in Sy.No.1/7(old), 1/47(new) and Ac.3.25 cents in Sy.No.1/8P totaling to Ac.13.30 cents is available for mining lease and thus issued NOC on 31.05.2005. Thereafter the Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and Commerce, M.I(2) Department in Memo No.14545/M.I(2)/2005-1, dated 04.10.2005 the Government have proposed to grant mining lease for silica sand over an extent of Ac.13.30 cents in Sy.No.1/47 (new) 1/7(old and 1/8P of East Kanupuru in favour of the petitoner for a period of 20 years subject to submission of approved mining plan within six months from the date of receipt of Memo. Pursuant to this proposal, G.O.Ms.No.213, Industries and Commerce (M.I(2)) Department, dated 01.08.2006 was issued by the Secretary to the Government granting the mining lease in respect of aforesaid land in favour of the petitioner for a period of 20 years subject to petitioner obtaining NOC from A.P. Pollution Control Board and environmental clearance from the Government of India. 21. Thus as rightly argued by the petitioner the Mining Department after receiving NOC from the Tahsildar have carefully scrutinized the application and finally decided to grant mining lease over an extent of Ac.13.30 cents in favour of the petitioner and accordingly issued G.O.Ms.No.213. (a) While so, the copies of the order No. SEIAA/AP/NLR-13/2099, dated 13.02.2009 issued by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority and the consent order No.101/PCB/zo-VJA/CFE/2009, dated 20.03.2009 which are filed along with material papers would show that the environmental clearance and NOC from A.P. Pollution Control Board were obtained by the petitioner way back in March, 2009 itself. Thereafter, it appears that he made representation to the mining authorities for execution of a regular lease deed. One of his representations dated 14.07.2009 was referred to revenue authorities to know whether the proposed mining lease area falls within the SEZ/Industrial Park lands allotted to APIIC. In this regard, the letter dated 27.07.2009 addressed by the Tahsildar, Chillakur to R.D.O., Gudur, a copy of which is filed with the material papers is very important. In the said letter, the Tahsildar has clearly stated that on his inspection of the proposed mining lands, he found that mining lease lands of Ac.13.30 cents were not covered by the lands requisitioned by the APIIC Ltd., This letter of course was claimed to be a faulty one by the revenue department. Be that it may, so far as the mining department is concerned, they have accepted and acted upon the said letter of the Tahsildar, Chillakur though belatedly and executed the lease deed in favour of the petitioner. It should be noted that even after obtaining NOC from A.P. Pollution Control Board and environmental clearance from the Government of India, when the Mining Authorities did not execute the lease deed, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23010/2012 for a direction to the authorities. The Mining and Revenue Authorities were arrayed as parties. It should be noted that even after obtaining NOC from A.P. Pollution Control Board and environmental clearance from the Government of India, when the Mining Authorities did not execute the lease deed, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23010/2012 for a direction to the authorities. The Mining and Revenue Authorities were arrayed as parties. In the said writ petition, the respondent authorities have taken a plea for the first time that the mining application of the petitioner has to be viewed in the context of need for proposed Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and certain other requirements. However, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh discarded such a plea and held that the reasons stated by the 2nd respondent therein for not executing the lease deed were totally untenable. It was further observed that the delay was only on the part of the two agencies in issuing certificates. The Court ultimately allowed the writ petition and gave a direction to the 2nd respondent to execute the lease deed as contemplated through G.O.Ms.No.213, dated 01.08.2006 within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. Thus the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has considered and rejected the plea of the respondents that the mining lease lands might be required for establishment of SEZ/Industrial Park and directed the mining authorities to execute the lease deed within four weeks from the date of its order. Thereafter, when the mining authorities did not execute the lease deed, petitioner filed contempt petition and ultimately the lease deed was executed by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology in favour of the petitioner. (b) Record further shows that when the 10th respondent in W.P.No.26084/2015 interfered with its mining operations, the petitioner filed W.P.No.26084/2015 for a direction to the official respondents to take action against it. In the said writ petition, having regard to the counter filed by the Tahsildar, Chillakur giving an insinuation that the mining lease lands fall within the SEZ, or learned single Judge vide order dated 04.12.2015, directed the District Collector Nellore to resolve the issue by holding meeting with both parties so as to negotiate for an amicable settlement if possible and file report thereof before the Court. In that context the District Collector, Nellore filed report dated 20.01.2016, the legality of which is severely criticized by the writ petitioner. 22. In that context the District Collector, Nellore filed report dated 20.01.2016, the legality of which is severely criticized by the writ petitioner. 22. I have gone through the above report of the District Collector and also her proceedings in Rc.No.E12/547/2015 dated 23.12.2015. The Collector noted the chronology of the events touching the lease application of the petitioner and purchase of the lands by the 10th respondent for establishment of the SEZ. So far as writ petitioner is concerned, the Collector mentioned the date of application as 01.10.2004; the MRO’s NOC as 31.05.2005 for allotting Ac.13.30 cents; Government’s memo dated 04.10.2005 requesting the petitioner to submit mining plan within six months and to obtain consent from A.P. Pollution Control Board and environmental clearance from the Government of India etc. Curiously, the Collector did not mention about the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.213, dated 01.08.2006 by the Government. Then she mentioned about the filing of writ petition No.23010/2012 and on the direction of the Court in Contempt Case No.1349/2013, the execution of the lease dated on 17.10.2013 by the Assistant Director. (a) Then so far as 10th respondent is concerned, in the chronology it is mentioned that the District Collector Nellore issued advance possession of the lands of Ac.1648.73 cents and 650.05 cents to APIIC on 02.09.2008 and thereafter the APIIC handed over of extent of Ac.4731.14 cents to 10th respondent on 02.09.2008, 06.09.2008 and 03.12.2008 for establishment of SEZ and its execution of sale deeds in favour of 10th respondent on 28.09.2009 and 15.09.2010. Thus taking the date of lease deed on one hand and sale deeds on the other, the District Collector observed that in view of faulty report of the Tahsildar, Chillakur dated 27.07.2009 stating that the mining lease lands were not covered by the lands handed over to APIIC, the same parcels of the land were parallelly processed for two different purposes. Ultimately the Collector concluded that the sale deeds will prevail over the mining lease deed since the former were executed and registered earlier than the later. The District Collector refered Section 47 of the Registration Act in this regard. (b) I am afraid, the above conclusion of the Collector is not legally correct. As already stated supra, she has neither referred nor discussed about the legal effect of G.O.Ms.No.213. It is needless to emphasize that the said G.O. was issued by the Government after a thorough exercise. (b) I am afraid, the above conclusion of the Collector is not legally correct. As already stated supra, she has neither referred nor discussed about the legal effect of G.O.Ms.No.213. It is needless to emphasize that the said G.O. was issued by the Government after a thorough exercise. As already discussed supra, the application dated 01.10.2004 of the petitioner was referred by the Assistant Director of Mines to the Revenue Department for issuing NOC and after field survey, the Tahsildar, Chillakur addressed that out of applied area of Ac. 102.67 cents, only Ac.13.30 cents could be allotted for mining operations. Thereafter the Memo No. 14545/M.I(2)/2005-1, dated 04.10.2005 was issued by the Government stating that after careful examination of the proposals of the Director of Mines and Geology, Government have proposed to grant mining lease over an extent of Ac.13.30 cents in favour of the petitioner for 20 years. The said memo was followed by G.O.Ms.No213, Industries and Commerce (M.I(2)) Department, dated 01.08.2006. This Government Order clearly spells out that the Government have granted mining lease over an extent of Ac.13.30 cents in favour of the petitioner for 20 years subject to certain conditions. It should be noted that the Government Orders will be issued not without any purpose or exercise on a subject. The executive orders trace their origin to Article 162 of the Constitution which lays down that the subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the executive power of a State shall extend to the matters with respect to which the legislature of the State has power to make laws. Thus the executive power of the State is generally coextensive with that of its legislative power subject to the proviso mentioned in the Article 162. In exercise of such executive power, sometimes the executive Government issues Government Orders/Circulars/Rules etc., It was observed in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kumari Nivedita, AIR 1981 SC 2045 that executive power of a State under Article 162 cannot be so exercised as to override the statutory provisions more so when the said provision is in a field occupied by the Union List The executive order can be used to supplement law but not to supplant it. In Union of India v. Central Electrical and Mechanial Engineering Service Group-A Association, AIR 2008 SC 3 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed thus: “9. In Union of India v. Central Electrical and Mechanial Engineering Service Group-A Association, AIR 2008 SC 3 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed thus: “9. It is now a well settled principle of law that an executive order must be passed in conformity with the Rules. Power of the State Government to issue executive instructions is confined to filling up of the gaps or covering the area which otherwise has not been covered by the existing Rules. See Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. MANU/SC/0330/1967 : (1968)IILLJ830SC and D.D.A. and Ors. v. Joginder S. Monga and Ors. MANU/SC/1040/2003 : (2004)2SCC297 Such office orders must be subservient to the statutory rules.” 23. In the light of above jurisprudence when G.O.Ms.No.213 is perused, it was issued by the executive Government well within its powers by granting mining lease of the subject lands in favour of the petitioner company subject to certain conditions. This Government Order spells out the intention of the Government to lease out the lands to the petitioner company. It is nobody’s case that subsequently the Government have either cancelled or withdrawn the said G.O. On the other hand, in W.P.No.23010/2012 this Court directed the mining authorities to execute the lease deed as contemplated through G.O.Ms.No.213, dated 01.08.2006. Therefore, in my considered view, the petitioner company can trace out its right over the leasehold lands not only through registered lease deed dated 17.10.2013 but also through aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.213. True is that the G.O. alone will not create any full-fledged rights to the petitioner to mine the subject lands and extract mineral. However, the said G.O. creates a right in favour of the petitioner to seek for execution of a regular lease deed by the authorities in his favour. In similar circumstances in Manohar Lal Sharma’s case (1 supra) while discussing the legal effect of allocation letters issued by the Central Government in favour of beneficiaries in respect of different State owned coal mines, the Apex Court held that it is true that allocation letter issued by the Central Government itself does not authorize the allottee to win or mine the coal but nevertheless, the allocation letter does confer a very important right upon the allottee to apply for grant of prospecting license or mining lease. Obviously the allocation of coal block amounts to grant of largecy. Obviously the allocation of coal block amounts to grant of largecy. In the instant case also, as discussed supra, the Government Order for all practical purposes notifies the intention of the Government to lease out the subject lands for mining purpose in favour of the petitioner. The subsequent act of execution of mining lease can be regarded as only a consequential act. In the light of the legal efficacy of the Government Order, one cannot countenance the act of the District Collector in omitting the G.O and only comparing the respective dates of registration of sale deeds and lease deed and concluding that sale deeds were executed and registered earlier than the lease deed. The District Collector, it must be said, committed a grave error in not giving the due importance to the Government Order in the gamut of facts. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section-47 of the Registration Act has no much application here. Section-47 reads thus: “47. Time from which registered document operates – A registered document shall operate from the time which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration.” As per above section, a registered document operates from the date of its execution and not from the date of its registration. There is no demure about the above legal principle. There is no denial of the fact that lease deed was executed and registered subsequent to the registration of the sale deeds. However, what is germane for consideration is that petitioner’s right to obtain lease deed traces back to the date of issuance of the G.O. in 2006 by which time neither the lands were allocated to APIIC nor APIIC executed sale deeds in favour of the 10th respondent. Thus when the facts are holistically considered, it must be said that the petitioner stood earlier in point of time than 10th respondent. 24. Then the observation of the District Collector that the Tahsildar, Chillakur in his letter dated 27.07.2009 has given a faulty information that the mining lease lands were not covered by the lands handed over to APIIC is concerned, it may be a mistaken information. However that mistake cannot be attributed to the petitioner as his fault. 24. Then the observation of the District Collector that the Tahsildar, Chillakur in his letter dated 27.07.2009 has given a faulty information that the mining lease lands were not covered by the lands handed over to APIIC is concerned, it may be a mistaken information. However that mistake cannot be attributed to the petitioner as his fault. By the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.213, the lands were not allocated and handed over to APIIC or the 10th respondent. If subsequently some lands, including the subject lands were allocated to APIIC, the said mistake of fact cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Therefore the order dated 11.12.2018 of the Director of Mines and Geology in cancelling the petitioner’s lease deed on the sole ground that the lease was granted under mistake of fact is legally unsustainable. Running the risk of pleonasm, it should be stated that mistake of fact was not committed by the petitioner or the mining authorities. It was only long time after passing of the G.O.Ms.No.213, the lands including the mining lands, were allocated to the APIIC by the revenue department. So mistake of fact if any can be attributed to the revenue department as well as to the APIIC. 25. Thus on a conspectus of facts and law, the proceedings and report of the District Collector as well as the lease cancellation proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology are not sustainable under law and they are liable to be set aside. In this regard I find the request of the petitioner to ignore the observations dated 27.01.2016 of learned Judge of this Court as valid and reasonable. The said observation gives an inference as if this Court has accepted the report of the District Collector and only reduced the time to act upon the report by the Mining Authorities from three months to one month. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the parties in the writ petition were not given an opportunity to express their views on the report by then. Therefore relying upon the principle Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit the observation of this Court dated 27.01.2016 is ignored and the writ petitions are decided on their respective merits. 26. Sri J. Ugranarasimha, learned Standing Counsel for APIIC placed reliance on M.N.Clubwala vs. Fida Hussain Saheb, AIR 1965 SC 610 . Therefore relying upon the principle Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit the observation of this Court dated 27.01.2016 is ignored and the writ petitions are decided on their respective merits. 26. Sri J. Ugranarasimha, learned Standing Counsel for APIIC placed reliance on M.N.Clubwala vs. Fida Hussain Saheb, AIR 1965 SC 610 . However in my view, the said judgment which distinguishes lease and license, will not be much helpful to his case. The loss if any occasioned to M/s Krishnapatnam Infra Tech Private Limited for foregoing the mining lease lands of Ac.13.30 cents in Sy.No.1/47 (new) [1/7 old] and 1/8P of East Kanupuru Village should be suitably compensated by arriving at a workable solution between the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the said Company. 27. In the result (i) Writ Petition No.26084 of 2015 is allowed and the respondent authorities, particularly respondents 3 to 9 shall take suitable steps so as to prevent the respondent 10 from interfering with the mining operations of the petitioner company over an extent of Ac.13.30 cents covered by Sy.No.1/47 and 1/8P of East Kanupuru Village, Chillakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District during the currency of the lease period. (ii) Writ Petition No.1962 of 2019 is allowed and the proceedings No. 154247/R3-1/2016 dated 11.12.2018 of the 2nd respondent cancelling the mining lease of the petitioner company over an extent of Ac.13.30 cents covered by Sy.No.1/47 and 1/8P of East Kanupuru Village, Chillakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District are hereby set aside and the respondents 1, 2 and 4 are directed to permit the petitioner to continue the mining operations during the currency of the mining lease period unless the petitioner commits any violations during the said period. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.