ORDER : K. MANMADHA RAO, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “….to issue Writ order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring order of the 2nd respondent vide Memo No 9605/M-IIl/2012-3 dated 19102012 in not directing the 6th respondent to reclamate the buffer margin area between S No 100/1 and 100/2 Chowdavaram Village Guntur Rural Mandal Guntur District with S Fee paid Gravel is illegal arbitrary violaive of APMMC Rules and non exercise of revisional powers vested in 2nd respondent in a proper manner and Art 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the order of the 2nd respondent dated 19102012 and pass….” 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner purchased an extent of Ac 19.05 cents in Sy.No.101, 102 and 511/2 of Chowdavaram village under two registered sale deeds dated 16.4.1998 and 05.11.1999. Later she sold an extent of Ac 12.79 cents in S.No.101 and 102 of Chowdavaram village in favour of the 2nd petitioner by way of a registered document dated 06.03.2006 and the 2nd petitioner constructed godowns in part of the property and in the rest of land, belongs to both the petitioners, dry crops are being cultivated. It is further stated that Deputy Director, Mines and Geology, Guntur granted quarry lease for excavation of gravel of an extent of Ac 13.38 cents in S.No.511/1, 3 and 4 and S.No.100/1 of Chowdavarm in favour of M/s IJM (India) Infrastructure Ltd.-the 6th respondent. After obtaining the lease, the 6th respondent started quarrying operations without fixing the boundaries which is mandatory under the APMMC Rules. It is further stated that the petitioners' patta land is situated towards Eastern and Southern side of the land leased out to the 6th respondent. Further, the 6th respondent while excavating the gravel, excavated the buffer area and partly encroached into petitioners land at some places. Hence, the petitioners made representations dated 10.12.2011 to the respondents No.1, 3 and 4. In pursuance of the said representations, the 4th respondent sent notice to the 6th respondent. Thereafter, the Project Team Leader submitted explanation dated 11.3.2012. Further, the 6th respondent while excavating the gravel, excavated the buffer area and partly encroached into petitioners land at some places. Hence, the petitioners made representations dated 10.12.2011 to the respondents No.1, 3 and 4. In pursuance of the said representations, the 4th respondent sent notice to the 6th respondent. Thereafter, the Project Team Leader submitted explanation dated 11.3.2012. After considering the explanation, the 4th respondent by demand notice dated 20.3.2012, directed the 6th respondent to pay penalty and normal seinorage fee.Aggrieved by the same, the 6th respondent filed a Revision invoking Rule 35-A of APMMC Rules 1966 before the Honorable Minister for Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent – the Joint Secretary to Government vide order dated 19.10.2012 allowed the revision by modifying the order. It is further stated that, since the 6th respondent excavated gravel without leaving buffer area and partly encroached into petitioner's land at some places, the 1st petitioner made a representation dated 12.7.2013 requesting to pass a revised order incorporating the undertaking given by the 6th respondent to reclamate the buffer margin area which will at least partly alleviate the petitioner's suffering on account of cracks in the soil and loss of topsoil. In pursuance of the same, the 2nd respondent sent a Memo dated 25.7.2013 to the 3rd respondent to examine the representation and furnish a report to the Government immediately for taking necessary action. But the authorities have not taken any action. Therefore, the 1st petitioner made another representation dated 16.8.2013 requesting the authorities to pass a revised order incorporating the undertaking given by 6th respondent qua reclamation of the buffer margin area. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a Memo dated 28.8.2013 to the 3rd respondent to submit a report to take necessary action. Since the 3rd respondent did not take any action, the 1st petitioner made another representation dated 17-10-2013 to the respondent authorities. In spite of repeated representations, the authorities did not evoke any response. The authorities having found illegal excavation ought to have directed the 6th respondent to make good by reclamate, that too, when the 6th respondent came forward with such a proposal. The petitioners are unable to carry out any work on Western and Northern side of their land in view of the excavation done by the 6th respondent illegally. The authorities having found illegal excavation ought to have directed the 6th respondent to make good by reclamate, that too, when the 6th respondent came forward with such a proposal. The petitioners are unable to carry out any work on Western and Northern side of their land in view of the excavation done by the 6th respondent illegally. Even the workers are not daring to go to the boundaries since they are anticipating collapse. The inaction of the respondents in directing the 6th respondent to reclamate the buffer area is not only illegal but also arbitrary and violative of Art 300-A of the Constitution of India as well the APMMC Rules 1966. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The Counter affidavit has not been filed by any of the respondents. 4. This Court vide order, dated 08.07.2024 held that, as no counters are filed by the 6th respondent, right to file counter by the 6th respondent was forfeited. Further, as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents sought time to file counter, and hence, at his request, the matter was directed to be posted to 22.6.2024 for filing counter along with leave petition. Further, this Court also held that, if the counter affidavit is not filed by the next date of hearing, the right to file counter would be forfeited. 5. Even the conditional order passed by this Court that “if the counter affidavit is not filed by the next date of hearing, the right to file counter would be forfeited”, the respondents have not filed any counter. Therefore, the right to file counter affidavit by the official respondents is hereby forfeited. 6. Heard Sri T.V Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, M/s.Indus Law Firm and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 7. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the petition, contended that the 6th respondent proceeded with the excavation of the land without fencing the boundaries as required under Rule 28(2) of the APMMC Rules, 1966, as also the form-G, the lease agreement. He further submits that the 6th respondent proceeded further and excavated gravel in buffer area and partly encroached at some places into the petitioners' land. He further submits that the 6th respondent proceeded further and excavated gravel in buffer area and partly encroached at some places into the petitioners' land. He submits that as per Rule 27 of the APMMC Rules, in case of lease of land the lessee shall be responsible for the proper working of the quarry and shall be liable to the Government for wrongful act of default. Learned counsel further submits that, initially, though the 6th respondent denied about illegal excavation, in fact the authorities conducted a survey and found the illegal excavation. In view of the excavation in buffer area touching the boundary and partly encroaching into petitioners' land at some places, the petitioners are not in position to use their land in its entity. He further submits that, in fact, the 6th respondent came forward and requested the authorities to permit him to reclamate the buffer area. The 2nd respondent being the revisional authority, without considering the said request, made by the 6th respondent, reduced the penalty and allowed the revision. He further submits that the 2nd respondent ought to have directed the 6th respondent to reclamate the buffer area while reducing the penalty. The petitioners are reserving their right to claim compensation with regard to the loss caused by the 6th respondent and apathy of the official respondents in allowing the 6th respondent to excavate illegal excavation. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to issue a direction to the 6th respondent to reclamate the buffer margin area and pass appropriate orders by setting aside the order of the 2nd respondent. 8. On a perusal of the material on record, it is observed that, in the representation dated 10.12.2011 submitted by the petitioners, wherein, they are stated that the lease holder has started the excavation of gravel and time and again they have told to restrict to their portion of the land after leaving a buffer Margie of 2 mts. It is also stated that in the course of their excavation along with his boundary the 6th respondent has dug gravel upto 6 feet depth in a horizontal way without any slope and have entered his boundary at a few points and in most of the area adjacent to his land, they have not left the mandatory 2 meters buffer margin to be left over from the adjacent patta lands. In fact towards the eastern side of the leased quarry is a road which is being used for ingress nad egress and they have dug up horizontally without any slope and without leaving any buffer and touching his boundary. Thus they have not even spared the road also. 9. As seen from the Joint Inspection Report dated 05.03.2012, wherein it was mentioned that “the area was surveyed and demarcated by the Surveyor of this office to verify the allegations raised by the adjacent pattadar Sri B. Chidamabara babu against the lease holder M/s. IJM (India) Infrastructure Ltd., i.e., the lease holder has excavated the left over buffer margin between the leased area and his patta land. As per the survey and demarcation, the lease holder has excavated the Gravel outside the leased area”. 10. Further, this Court observed that, the show cause notice, dated 05.03.2012 would show that, wherein, Sri B. Chidambara Babu has represented that M/s. IJM (India) Infrastructure Ltd., has excavated the land for Gravel in their leased area abutting to the petitioner’s land to this boundary and dug the gravel upto 6 feet depth in a horizontal way without any slope and not maintained 2 mts buffer margin to this patta land and requested this office to take immediate action against the violations committed by the lease holder M/s. IJM (India) Infrastructure Ltd., In the said show cause notice, it was also mentioned that M/s. IJM (India) Infrastructure Ltd., is liable to pay the penalty on the excess transportation of 1,45,541.77 Cu.meters of Gravel from the subject leased area and outside the leased area as per Rule 26 read with Rule 34 of APMMC Rules 1966. In pursuance of the above show cause notice, M/s IJM India) Infrastructure Limited has submitted its explanation stating that “we are prepared for reclamation of the buffer margin area between S.No.100/1 and S.No.100/2 with S.Fee paid Gravel, duly giving an undertaking to the Mines Department and Sri B.Chindamabara Babu to that extent.” 11. Further, on a perusal of the Demand notice dated 20.03.2012, wherein the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur has directed the M/s. IJM (India) Infrastructure Ltd., to pay an amount of Rs.32,01,919/- towards normal seig. Further, on a perusal of the Demand notice dated 20.03.2012, wherein the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur has directed the M/s. IJM (India) Infrastructure Ltd., to pay an amount of Rs.32,01,919/- towards normal seig. Fee along with penalty of Rs.1,73,95,625/- a total of Rs.2,05,97,544/- on excess transportation of 1,45,541.77 Cu Meters of Gravel excavated from the subject leased area and outside the leased area to the following head of accounts within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice. Failing which necessary action will be initiated for cancellation of the subject lease along with forfeiture of security deposit and also for realization of Mineral Revenue dues under R.R. Act. Thereafter, the IJM (India) Infrastructure Ltd., has filed revision before the Joint Secretary to Government and the said revision was disposed of directing to pay one-time penalty out of the total penalty levied in the demand notice number together with normal seigniorage fee until it is detected by the Department". 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and on perusing the material on record, this Court observed that, as per the contention of the petitioners, during the course of enquiry, no notice has been issued on the petitioners at any point of time since the petitioners are interested in getting reclamation of buffer margin area being neighbouring land owners. Therefore this Court deems fit to allow the writ petition while declaring the order of the 2nd respondent dated 9.10.2012 in not directing the 6th respondent to reclamate the buffer margin area between S.No.100/1 and 100/2 Chowdavaram Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District, as illegal and arbitrary. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Allowed. The impugned order vide Memo No.9605/M.II(1)/2012-3 dated 19.10.2012 is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.