ORDER : Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J. 1. Heard Sri Keerthi Kiran Kota, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri D. Khasim Saheb, learned Government Pleader for Forests. 2. Prayer made in the Writ Petition is as under: “……to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent herein in interfering and obstructing the quarrying operations in land admeasuring 4.997 hectares in Sy. No. 1-3 of Mittachintalavaripalli Village, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor district inspite of representations vide legal notice dt: 24.09.2022 and proceedings of 3rd respondent in Rc. No. 39/2010/A5 Dt: 07.08.2010 as illegal, arbitrary, colorable exercise of power, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent No. 4 and his staff to not to interfere and obstruct the quarrying operations in land admeasuring 4.997 hectares in Sy.No. 1-3 of Mittachintalavaripalli Village, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor district and pass such other order or orders ….” FACTS AS SET OUT BY THE WRIT PETITIONER:- 3. The case of the Writ Petitioner is that in the year 2006, he had applied for a quarry lease for mining black granite over an extent of 5.00 hectares in Sy.No.1 to 3 of Mittachintalavaripalli Village, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District for a period of 20 years; that the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Palamaner, Chittoor District (R.5) herein, has recommended for grant of Quarry Lease in favour of the Writ Petitioner vide Proceedings bearing File No.3234/Q/2007 dated 02.08.2008 for mining for an extent of 4.997 hectares Sy.Nos.1 to 3 of Mittachintalavaripalli Village, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District; that the State of Andhra Pradesh (R.1) herein vide Proceedings bearing No.8800/R5-1/2008 dated 15.07.2008 accorded permission for mining black granite in the said extent; that thereafter, the 5th Respondent entered into a Lease Deed with the Writ Petitioner for a period of 20 years from 02.08.2008 to 01.08.2028 vide Proceedings bearing No.3234/Q/2007 dated 02.08.2008; that, later, a Joint Inspection was held on 02.02.2010 by the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 namely Divisional Forest Officer (R.3), Forest Range Officer (R.4) and Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Palamaner, Chittoor District (R.5) along with the Officials of the Revenue Department, Survey Department for the purpose of resolving the objections raised by the Forest Range Officer (R.4); that the objections put forth by Respondent No.4 is that the mining operations partly fell in the area of Arantlapalle Reserve Forest; that the Forest Range Officer (R.4) filed a criminal complaint against the Writ Petitioner bearing C.C.No.201 of 2009 for various offences under Section 20 of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act with the allegation that the Writ Petitioner is quarrying black granite from the forest area; whereas, in the Joint Inspection, it clearly emerged that the mining operations is outside the reserve forest area; that the Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in Rc.No.39/2010/A5 dated 07.08.2010 had categorically held that the quarrying done by the Writ Petitioner is falling on the southern side of the reserve forest line between the Stations 74 and 76 and at Station No.75; and that the quarry under operation is at nearest with about 2 chain distance (approximately 8 meters) as it goes towards the east, and the distance between reserve forest and the quarry site increases; that by the Final Judgment dated 18.08.2011, the criminal complaint filed by the Divisional Forest Officer was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur (Ex.P4) by placing reliance on the Proceedings issued by the Divisional Forest Officer bearing Rc.No.39/2010/A5 dated 07.08.2010; that the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur has given a clear finding that the Writ Petitioner is carrying on his quarrying operations within the land belonging to the Revenue Department but not in the land belonging to the Forest Department; and, that for the last 14 years the Writ Petitioner was carrying on mining operations in the very same area without any hindrance or objections from any corner. 4. The averments in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition further reveals that the Forest Range Officer and his subordinates have again started interfering with the mining operations on a daily basis and causing obstructions in the mining operations by once again contending that the mining activity of the Writ Petitioner fell within the Reserve Forest; and that the 4th Respondent and his Subordinates are threatening the Writ Petitioner that they will remove men and machinery employed in the quarrying operations in the area belonging to the Writ Petitioner. STAND OF DEPARTMENT OF FOREST:- 5. Respondent No.3 has filed the Counter Affidavit narrating all the events up to the date of Joint Inspection and its Report dated 02.02.2010 and submitted that the Writ Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case vide C.C.No.201 of 2009 by Judgment dated 18.08.2011 basing on the Joint Inspection Report dated 02.02.2010 and the Proceedings of the Divisional Forest Officer vide Rc.No.39/2010/A5 dated 07.08.2010; that the Writ Petitioner has given an undertaking dated 01.05.2013 to the effect that he will carry out quarrying operation leaving a gap of an extent of 7.8 meters between R.F line (Reserved Forest line) and the area under mining lease held by him; and that he will not enter into the Reserve Forest and will not indulge in any activities which violates the Forest Laws; that despite such ‘undertaking’, since the Writ Petitioner was carrying on illegal operations in the Reserve Forest, Respondent No.4 has registered O.R No.70/2022-2023 dated 08.10.2022 and that a Charge Sheet is being filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur; and that the quarry was surveyed by Revenue, Mines and Geology Department on 18.06.2015 and it was found that the quarrying area is falling in Arantlapalle Reserve Forest in COMPT No.105. REJOINDER OF THE WRIT PETITIONER:- 6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, in his Rejoinder, has drawn the attention of this Court to the Joint Inspection Report dated 02.02.2010 (Ex.P.3); Proceedings of Respondent No.3 in Rc.No.39/2010/A5 dated 07.08.2010 (Ex.P.2); Judgment rendered by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur in C.C.No.201 of 2009 dated 18.08.2011 (Ex.P.4); and, the Legal Notice dated 24.09.2022 (Ex.P.1). 7. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, in his Rejoinder, has drawn the attention of this Court to the Joint Inspection Report dated 02.02.2010 (Ex.P.3); Proceedings of Respondent No.3 in Rc.No.39/2010/A5 dated 07.08.2010 (Ex.P.2); Judgment rendered by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur in C.C.No.201 of 2009 dated 18.08.2011 (Ex.P.4); and, the Legal Notice dated 24.09.2022 (Ex.P.1). 7. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has submitted that when the Writ Petitioner has commenced the mining operations, Respondent No.4 herein has lodged a criminal complaint on 01.10.2008 and the same was registered as C.C.No.201 of 2009; that while the criminal proceedings were going on against the Writ Petitioner, the Joint Inspection was conducted in the presence of the Writ Petitioner, the Officials of the Revenue and Survey Departments, Divisional Forest Officer (R.3), Forest Range Officer (R.4) and Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Palamaner, Chittoor District (R.5). He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Joint Inspection Report, which has noted the following findings: “The Coordinates taken for the R.F. Boundary, mining area are checked with GPS and also with compass. At the time of field inspection it is noticed that the disputed mining area laying out of R.F and it can only confirmed only after completing the remaining line measuring and location of balance crains and only after generating the connected map as per the notification and it will be completed in a week. The final conclusion whether the disputed land is falling in RF or not can be drawn after completing the balance survey work and verifying the surveyed line and the disputed land finally”. 8. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Proceedings issued by the District Forest Officer (R.3) in Rc.No.39/2010/A5 dated 07.08.2010 and submitted that the balance survey work and verification of surveyed line was later completed. 9. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the observations and the consequences made by the Divisional Forest Officer in Proceedings bearing Rc.No.39/2010/A5 dated 07.08.2010 (Ex.P.2). 9. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the observations and the consequences made by the Divisional Forest Officer in Proceedings bearing Rc.No.39/2010/A5 dated 07.08.2010 (Ex.P.2). The relevant extract is as under :- “In this connection, the Forest Range Officer, Punganur, has inspected the area along revenue department and finally submitted report that the quarry area which is under dispute is falls adjacent to the RF line between cairn Nos 74 to 75 and super imposed the Map with, GPS reading taken on every stations 1 to 115 the notified area of 1150.72, has been tallied. Further as per the instructions of the DFO, Chittoor West the SubDFO, Madanaplli has also test checked and submitted his report vide Rc.No. OR-58/2008-09, dt;29.06.2010, stated that he has test checked the stations No.100,99,97,95,84,81,76,75 & 74 and the quarrying done by Sri K. Mahesh Reddy falling on the southern side of the Reserved Forest line between the stations 74 & 76 and at Station No. 75 the excavated quarry is at the nearest with about 2 Chain distance and as it goes towards cast the distance between the RF & the Quarry site increases. Under the circumstance explained by the Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Madanapalli and as per field condition, further action in the case is here by dropped”. 10. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has then drawn the attention of this Court to the Final Judgment rendered by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur in C.C.No.201 of 2009 dated 18.08.2011 (Ex.P4). The findings rendered by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur has relevance in the present case. The relevant portion is extracted herein: “12. PW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that after filing of charge sheet against the accused, a joint Survey was conducted by Forest officials with Revenue officials and the Divisional Forest Officer, Chittoor has issued proceedings dropping further action against the accused, after joint survey stating that the accused is carrying the quarry in the revenue land. PW-2 also in his crossexamination admitted that after filing of the charge sheet, a joint survey was conducted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chittoor and issued proceedings dropping further action against the accused. PW-2 also in his crossexamination admitted that after filing of the charge sheet, a joint survey was conducted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chittoor and issued proceedings dropping further action against the accused. PW-3 also admitted that after joint survey, it is found that the land is belongs to the Revenue department and their Divisional Forest officer has issued proceedings dropping further action against the accused. 13. As per the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, it is clear that they with an impression that the accused is carrying quarry in the land of Forest Department, they have seized the Drilling Tractor and other articles and prepared panchayanama. After the joint survey conducted by the Forest Department with the Revenue Department, it came to know that the accused is carrying out the quarry work in the land belongs to Revenue department. Admittedly, the accused has obtained lease hold rights from the Mines and Geology Department and Revenue Department to carry out the quarry work. 14. The accused during his 313 Cr.P.C examination , he filed two documents one is the certificate of Joint Survey conducted by Forest officials and Revenue officials , the another document is proceedings of the Divisional Forest Officer, West Division, Chittoor . Divisional Forest Officer, Chittoor West Division, Chittoor in his proceedings Rc. No.39/2010/A5 dt: 7-8-2010 clearly mentioned that the accused is carrying quarry within the land belongs to the Revenue Department and further action against the accused is hereby dropped. As per the proceedings of the Divisional Forest Officer, Chittoor, it is clear that the accused is not carrying out the quarry work within the Reserve Forest . When the accused carrying the quarry within the Revenue land, the question of committing the offence does not arise. As per the evidence available on record, there is no iota of evidence against the accused to show that he cleared the land belongs to Reserve Forest. 15. Considering the evidence available on record, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the accused No.1 is entitled to acquittal. 16. In the result, the accused (A-1) is found not guilty of offences under Secs. 20(1)(C)(II) (III)(V)(VI) (VII) &(X) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and he is acquitted under Sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused stands cancelled, after lapse of six months”. 11. 16. In the result, the accused (A-1) is found not guilty of offences under Secs. 20(1)(C)(II) (III)(V)(VI) (VII) &(X) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and he is acquitted under Sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused stands cancelled, after lapse of six months”. 11. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has submitted that there was quietus on these issues and the Writ Petitioner is carrying on his mining activities since 14 years without any interruption. Recently, on account of various threats given by the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 and their Subordinates that they would remove men and machinery from the area of mining operations, the Writ Petitioner herein got issued a Legal Notice on 24.09.2022 (Ex.P.1) by narrating the sequence of events as to how the Official Respondents have no claim in view of the various inspections done and in view of findings of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur. Through the Legal Notice dated 24.09.2010 (Ex.P.1), Writ Petitioner urged the Respondent No.4 not to interfere with the peaceful mining activity of the Writ Petitioner. 12. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner further submitted that the so called survey done by the Officials of the Revenue, Mines and Geology Departments on 18.06.2015; that the finding that the quarrying area has fallen in Arantlapalle Reserve Forest Compt.No.105 is an utter falsehood. He contended that to the knowledge of the Writ Petitioner no such survey has taken place and if at all it has taken place, then, it was perhaps done only behind the back of the Writ Petitioner in as much as he was never put on notice. He further contended that, if the Revenue and Mines and Geology Departments were to conduct survey, the least procedure that they ought to have followed is to put the Writ Petitioner on notice and conduct the survey in his presence. He further contended that the complaint registered against the Writ Petitioner has come to his knowledge for the first time after seeing the averments in the Counter Affidavit that a complaint has been lodged against him in O.R. Case No.70 of 2022-2023 dated 08.10.2022. He has narrated the sequence of the latest events to contend that the alleged case that was registered on him on 08.10.2022 is only as counter blast to the Legal Notice sent by him on 24.09.2022 (Ex.P1). He has narrated the sequence of the latest events to contend that the alleged case that was registered on him on 08.10.2022 is only as counter blast to the Legal Notice sent by him on 24.09.2022 (Ex.P1). To substantiate his contention, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has stated that the Writ Petitioner has issued Legal Notice on 24.09.2022 (Ex.P.1), while the case was registered behind the back of the Writ Petitioner on 08.10.2022 bearing O.R Case No.70/2022- 2023 (filed as material document along with the Counter Affidavit). He also contended that the Respondents, even while filing the Counter Affidavit, did not submit a copy of the Report alleged to have been prepared by the Departments of Revenue and Geology dated 18.06.2015. 13. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has further stated that basing on the evidence in the Survey Report, the Official Respondents have superimposed the sketches with Map and G.P.S. As a consequence of this superimposition, the Divisional Forest Officer (D.F.O.) had issued proceedings dated 07.08.2010, wherein it was clearly mentioned that “quarrying done by Sri K. Mahesh Reddy falling on the southern side of the Reserved Forest line between the stations 74 & 76 and at Station No.75 the excavated quarry is at the nearest with about 2 Chain distance and as it goes towards east the distance between the RF & the Quarry site increases.” Basing on these findings, which includes superimposition of Map and G.P.S., the Criminal Case that was initiated against the petitioner was dropped. 14. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, opposing the averments of the official respondents which are stated in their counter affidavit, had submitted that the quarry and the Reserve Forest was never surveyed again on 18.06.2015. He would submit that if a survey was conducted on 18.06.2015 and that during the course of the said Survey the Official Respondents have noted any violations, the Official Respondents ought to have placed such material before this Court in support of their contention. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that conduct of Survey on 18.06.2015 is a falsehood in as much as the petitioner was never put on notice and that the official respondents have neither placed any material on record regarding the conduct of the said survey, nor with regard to issuance of prior notice to the Writ Petitioner regarding such survey. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS: 15. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS: 15. It is a matter of record that one Criminal Case registered against the Writ Petitioner bearing C.C.No.201 of 2009, basing on Criminal Complaint dated 01.10.2008, ended in acquittal vide Judgment dated 18.08.2011 (Ex.P4). This order, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur in C.C.No.201 of 2009 dated 18.08.2011 (Ex.P4), had attained finality. 16. It is a matter of record that the official respondents have initiated several other proceedings against the Writ Petitioner in respect of the same dispute, which they are not entitled to do so in view of the issues having attained finality. The joint inspection conducted on 02.02.2010 and its findings about the measurements having been superimposed on the Map with the help of G.P.S. have also supported the version of the Writ Petitioner and did not support the version of the Official Respondents. However, it is stated by the Official Respondents that the Survey is incomplete and that the Official Respondents intended to conduct a further Survey. 17. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed. The Respondents are directed not to either interfere or obstruct the quarrying operations in land admeasuring 4.997 hectares in Sy.Nos.1-3 of Mittachintalavaripalli Village, Punganur Mandal, Chittor District, to the extent where the issues have attained finality. In the event that the official respondents are of the opinion that the Writ Petitioner has resorted to any fresh/new violations and that a proper survey is the only method by which the respondents can establish that the Writ Petitioner had violated the mining norms vis-à-vis the Forest Laws, the official respondents are free to conduct a fresh survey and act accordingly as per law. However, such survey shall be done with the participation of the officials from the Forest, Mining, Geology, Revenue and of course the licensee, namely the present Writ Petitioner. The Writ Petitioner shall be put on advance notice by the official respondents. Sufficient time shall also be given to the Writ Petitioner to submit his version and also to place on record the necessary documents. No order as to costs. 18. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.