Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 98 (AP)

Bathina Narasimha Rao, Died v. Govt. Of A P

2025-01-10

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2025
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 direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings in Rc No E1/1693/2011 dt 25.09.2014 issued by the 3rd Respondent and the consequential memo No 11198/R22/2014 dt 13.10.2014 of the 2nd Respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside those impugned proceedings of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents and pass such other order/orders as this Honble Court deemed fit and proper circumstances of the present case….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the R.L.Puram is a Sothriyam Inam Village. One, Telikepalli Tirupathaiah was the primo-genitor. He had two sons by name, Krishnaiah and Purushotham. Krishnaiah had two sons by name Ramakrishnaiah and Mallaiah, who was adopted by Purushotham, who had no issues. Thus, the family came to be known as Ramakrishnaiah branch and Mallaiah branch. Ramakrishnaiah had four sons and one of the sons is Gopala Krishnaiah whose son is Ramakrishnaiah is the husband of Smt. Arundhathamma. There was a partition initially in respect of the property possessed by the said family and thereafter certain land was taken over by the Government. But, feeling that they had lesser property than the other branch, Ramakrishnaiah branch has filed O.S.No.327 of 1923 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ongole (for short “the trial Court”) for equalization of the property. The said suit was partly decreed against which A.S.No.79 of 1927 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Bapatla was filed, which was allowed by a judgment dated 26.03.1929 directing Mallaiah branch to hand over Ac. 17.76 cents of land to Rama Krishnaiah Branch. It is mainly stated that the Sy.No.55/4B of R.L Puram consists of Ac 39.556 cents. In that, the petitioners have purchased Ac 15.00 cents of land under an agreement of sale dated 21.11.1991. The said agreement of sale deed executed by one Smt T.Arundhathamma W/o Late Rama Krishanaiah. It is stated that the suit in O.S.No.16/2000 was filed by Sri A. Venkata Ramaiah for declaration of Title over the subject land in Sy.No.55/4B of R.L.Puram against Sri S.N.Nityanandam and 21 others.Sri S.N.Nityanandam and another also filed a suit in O.S.No.17/2000 on the file 1st Additional District Judge, Ongole for claiming various reliefs. It is stated that the suit in O.S.No.16/2000 was filed by Sri A. Venkata Ramaiah for declaration of Title over the subject land in Sy.No.55/4B of R.L.Puram against Sri S.N.Nityanandam and 21 others.Sri S.N.Nityanandam and another also filed a suit in O.S.No.17/2000 on the file 1st Additional District Judge, Ongole for claiming various reliefs. Thereafter, the petitioners herein have also filed O.S.No.15/2000 for declaration of Title in respect of Ac.15.00 cents of R.L.Puram village. Further, Sri Mandava Venkata Rao also filed a suit in O.S.No.21/2000 for injunction and all those clubbed together for joint trial by virtue of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CRP.No.2410/2005, dt.3.8.2005. The learned 1st Additional District Judge rendered a common judgment dismissing O.S.No.16 and 17 of 2000 and Batch. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.15/2000 the petitioners preferred A.S.No.698/2010 before this Hon'ble Court. and this Court has granted interim order vide A.S.M.P.No.1913 of 2010 in A.S.No.697/2010. One Aparna Rock Exports also filed A.S No.879 of 2010 against the judgment and decree passed in O.S No.16/2000. In the said Appeal Suit also, this Hon’ble Court has passed interim order vide ASMP No.2374/2010 in AS No.879/2010. While the matter stood thus, a News item was published in Andhra Jyothi daily news paper to the extent that DLSC is going to grant NO in favour of the 7 th respondent and another over subject land in Sy No.55/4B of R. L Puram village. The Tahsildar, submitted a report to the Collector Prakasam District. Accordingly, the District Collector, Prakasam District has issued NOC on 25.09.2014 over the subject land to an extent of Ac11.56 cents in Sy No.55/4B in favour of the 7 th respondent. It is stated that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 02.01.2013 framing guidelines for issuance of N.O.C. and based on the said guidelines the Collector said to have been issued N.O.C. Thereafter, the 2 nd respondent issued a memo No.11198/R2- 2/2014, dated 13.10.2014 with a direction to the ADMG, Ongole to take further steps as per Rules in terms of the N.O.C. given by the Collector in favour of the 7th Respondent. Aggrieved by the NOC dated 25.09.2014 issued in favour of the 7 th respondent and consequential Memo dated 13.10.2014, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. Aggrieved by the NOC dated 25.09.2014 issued in favour of the 7 th respondent and consequential Memo dated 13.10.2014, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. This Court, vide order, dated 21.10.2014, while issuing notice before admission, has granted status quo, existing as on that day, shall be maintained by both the parties with reference to grant of quarry lease to respondent No.7 4. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 7 th respondent. While denying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, with a view to expedite disposal of prospecting License/ Mining Lease and Quarry Lease applications the Government issued orders from time to time. As per the orders issued by the Government, the Tahsildars are issuing NOC's irrespective of extent, value and classification of land. The Government after careful examination of the matter issued uniform guidelines for issue of NOC in respect of licenses for mining lease and Quarry lease. As per the guidelines now the District Level Screening Committee is Competent to take decision on issue of NOC. The purpose for issuance of NOC is to ascertain the category of the land and availability of the land for grant of prospecting license/ Mining lease or quarry lease. It is stated that, in GO Ms.No.2 dated 2-01-2013 the Government have issued the guidelines for issue of NOC's in respect of licenses for mining lease or Quarry lease. The GO is not confined to Government lands alone. The mining lease or quarry lease can be granted in respect of any land either Government Porambokes, Forest land or private patta lands. In order to regulate the grant of Quarry lease in respect of the land to which an application has been submitted for mining lease or Quarry lease the NOC from the Competent Authority is one of the requisites. The NOC issued by the 3rd respondent is in accordance with the guidelines issued by Government and there is no illegally or irregularity in granting NOC to the subject land. It is further stated that the 7 th respondent has applied for Quarry lease to an extent of 12- 000 hectors on 18-10-2010. The authorities after conducting survey and considering the objections of the rival claimants including the legal notices sent on behalf of writ petitioners have granted NOC for Ac. 11-50 cents. The Writ petitioners claim is only to an extent of Ac. The authorities after conducting survey and considering the objections of the rival claimants including the legal notices sent on behalf of writ petitioners have granted NOC for Ac. 11-50 cents. The Writ petitioners claim is only to an extent of Ac. 15-00 covered by Ex.B5,B8,B9 and B10. The lands claimed by the Writ petitioners and the 7th respondent are earmarked by specific boundaries mentioned in their respective sale deeds. This Hon'ble court has considered the objections of the writ petitioners and confined the injunction in respect of the lands covered by Ex.B5,B8,B9 and B10. The survey authorities identified the lands covered by Ex.B5,B8, B9, and B10 basing on the boundaries mentioned in the above sale deeds and separated the land covered above exhibits from the lands of the 7 th respondent. It is further stated that the 3 rd respondent has excluded the said extent and granted NOC in respect of 7th respondent land. There is no injunction or any order from any court restraining the 3 rd respondent to grant NOC in respect of the land belongs to 7 th respondent. It is further stated that the 7 th respondent has submitted the application for Quarry lease on18-10-2010 by paying requisite fees. This Hon'ble court in W.P.No.1536 of 2011 has directed the 4th respondent herein to send a report indicating availability of mineral, category and classification of land. The Writ petitioners have no title, or interest in the land to which the 3 rd respondent issued NOC. The Civil Court on consideration of oral and documentary evidence has categorically held that the writ petitioners have no title in respect of the land covered by S.No.55/4B. For the last 20 years the Writ petitioners are preventing the owners from enjoying their respective land. On one pretext or the other the Writ petitioners are trying to stop the grant of Quarry lease in favour of 7 th respondent. therefore, there are no valid reasons to interfere with the orders passed by the respondents 2 and 3. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K. Koutilya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology; learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents No.1 to 6 and Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 7 th respondent. 6. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K. Koutilya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology; learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents No.1 to 6 and Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 7 th respondent. 6. On hearing, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners while reiterating the contents made in the petition, submits that, the 3 rd respondent ought to have seen that the application made by 7 th respondent for NOC over the subject land is certainly an overlapping application on the land in S.No.55/4B of R.L. Puram Village owned by the petitioners. He submits that the 3 rd Respondent ought to have seen that the claim of Aparna Rock Exports and the claim of petitioners over the subject land in Sy. No.55/4B of R.L.Puram village are different and distinct and both are claiming at the rate of Ac. 15.00 each. So, the Suits as well as Appeals filed by the petitioners as well as Aparna Granite covers Ac.30.00 acres of land, and therefore, no such land is available for grant of N.O.C. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the 7 th Respondent is a transferee pendent elite and such person cannot without impleading itself as a party to the pending proceedings is not entitled to seek N.O.C. from Respondents. He further submits that the 3rd Respondent completely ignored the decree passed in O.S.Nos.21 and 22/2000 over the land an extent of Ac.3.25 cents in Sy. No.55/4B of R.L.Puram Village. Since several claims and disputes which are pending over the subject land in the respective appeals as stated above, the 2nd Respondent ought to have rejected the claim of the 7th Respondent for granting of any quarry lease over the subject land, but in the instant case, the 2nd Respondent erred in issuing a consequential memo, dated 13.10.2014 in a mechanical manner without any application of mind. Therefore the impugned orders are liable to be set aside for non-application of mind over the disputes in question in the subject land which are pending before this Hon'ble Court. 7. Therefore the impugned orders are liable to be set aside for non-application of mind over the disputes in question in the subject land which are pending before this Hon'ble Court. 7. To support his contentions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on a decision reported in Bathula Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce (Mines) and Others , [2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 420] , wherein the composite High Court at Hyderabad held that: The executive instructions in G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 28.05.1998 were superseded by G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 02.01.2014 whereby uniform detailed guidelines were prescribed for a No Objection Certificate to be issued in respect of licenses for mining leases and quarry leases in relation to government lands. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology was required to receive applications as per the procedure in vogue. Para 6(i) of G.O.Ms.No.2 required a joint inspection team, consisting of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Divisional Forest Officer and the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, to inspect the proposed land and submit a detailed report to the District Collector within 30 days of receipt of the application for grant of mining lease/quarry lease. Para 6(vi) required a District Level Screening Committee to be constituted under the Chairmanship of the District Collector, and to consist of several officials, including the District Forest Officer as a member, and the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology as the member-convenor. This committee was required to meet once every 60 days, scrutinize the report of the joint inspection team, take a decision on the issue of NOC, and forward its decision to the Director, Mines and Geology for necessary action. 8. Learned Senior counsel while relying upon the above decision, submits that, the 2nd Respondent is duty bound to examine the entire record in connection with granting of N.O.C. given by the 3rd Respondent to the 7th Respondent. Further, the Respondents 2 and 3 are completely ignored the contents of the report submitted by the 5th Respondent in granting of N.O.C. as well as the consequential directions to the 6th Respondent. Further, the Respondents 2 and 3 are completely ignored the contents of the report submitted by the 5th Respondent in granting of N.O.C. as well as the consequential directions to the 6th Respondent. He further submits that the 7th Respondent admittedly obtained sale deeds during the pendency of the appeals before the Hon'ble High Court and the parties are fighting over two decades for their rights over the land in question and without finally deciding their respective rights over the subject land, granting of N.O.C. subject to outcome of the Appeals is without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 9. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents No.1 to 5 opposed for allowing the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 10. On the other hand, Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the 7 th respondent, while reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 7 th respondent, submits that the 7th respondent made an application for Quarry lease on 18.10.2010. The 6th respondent vide Lr.No.8304/G/2010 dt.18.10.2010 has directed the 7th respondent to submit (1) proposed plan of action for dumping waste material and (2) valid M.R.C.C. in Form-H issued by the Director of Mines and Geology. The 7th respondent has submitted the documents as required by the 6th respondent. Since the respondents have not taken any action on the application submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner filed the WP No. 11536 of 2011 before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad and the same was disposed of by this Court directing the 5th respondent therein to send his report to 3rd respondent. During the pendency of the application submitted by the 7th respondent, the Government have issued instructions directing that no NOC should be issued by the Tahsildar. Thereafter the Government revised the existing procedure with regard to the issue of NOC vide G.O.Ms No.2 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated. 02.01.2013 and issued guidelines for issue of NOC in respect of licenses for mining of Quarry lease. Accordingly, the District Level Screening Committee constituted under the chairmanship of the District Collector has to take collective decision on issue of NOC. 02.01.2013 and issued guidelines for issue of NOC in respect of licenses for mining of Quarry lease. Accordingly, the District Level Screening Committee constituted under the chairmanship of the District Collector has to take collective decision on issue of NOC. He further submits that the Joint Inspection team comprising of Revenue Divisional Officer, Divisional Forest Officer and Assistant Director of Mines and Geology of concerned jurisdiction inspected the proposed land and submitted the detailed report to the District Level Screening Committee. The DLSC has examined the report of the Joint InspectionTeam and resolved to recommend for issue of NOC over an extent of Ac.11.50 cents as against the applied area of 12.000 Hectars in S.No. 55/4B in favour of 7th respondent. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent in Rc.E1/1693/2011 dated.25.09.2014 has forwarded to the 2nd respondent for taking further necessary action in accordance with the G.O.Ms. No. 2, dated 02.01.2013. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent vide Memo No.11198/R2-2/2014 dated 13.10.2014 has sent to the 6th respondent to take further necessary action in the matter as per the rules. Therefore, as per the procedure existing at the time of consideration of the application, the authorities considered the application and granted NOC in favour of the 7th respondent and there is no illegality or irregularity what so ever. 11. To support his contentions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on a decision reported in M/s K V B Granites vs State of Andhra Pradesh , [2022 LawSuit(AP) 271] , wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati held that: “In the above context, I perused the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules (for short, 'the APMMC Rules, 1966'). The application in the instant case is submitted for grant of quarry lease for colour granite. As per Rule 12(5)(a)(i) of the APMMC Rules, 1966, an application for quarry lease shall be submitted to the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology in Form P. Each application shall be accompanied by a sketch drawn to the scale demarcating the boundaries, duly signed by the applicant and by a qualified surveyor enclosing treasury challan for requisite application fee. This rule further says that the deposit amount shall be refundable when the application is rejected on technical grounds like non-availability of the area, rejection of NOC. This rule further says that the deposit amount shall be refundable when the application is rejected on technical grounds like non-availability of the area, rejection of NOC. Therefore, this rule implies that the NOC is mandatory from the concerned Revenue Department if the land for which mining lease is sought for either belongs to Revenue Department or it holds an interest therein. Therefore, necessarily the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology has to forward mining lease application to the Tahsildar for issuing Feasibility report-cum-NOC. 12. In another case reported in Maruthi Granites, Guntur v Collector and District Magistrate , Prakasam District, Ongole and others , [ 2005(3) ALD 710 ] , wherein the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held that: In my considered opinion, question whether the second respondent issued the NOCs dated 21-2-2001 and 19-6-2002 surreptitiously or fraudulently is not very relevant for deciding this petition, because question of the Mandal Revenue Officer issuing notice to the third parties, on communication received by him from the third respondent for issuance of No Objection Certificate in respect of the applications for prospecting/mining leases received by him, does not arise, because the purpose of an NOC is to find out if the Government have any claim over the land, over which the lease is sought, or if there are any dues to the Government in respect of the land over which the lease is sought. Admittedly Government is not claiming any title to the eastern Acs.2.04 cents of land in Sy.No. 119 and admittedly fifth respondent is not in possession thereof. So, the fact that second respondent may not have issued notice to the fifth respondent before issuing two NOCs is not of any consequence. If I may say so it is not necessary to go into how the NOC dated 21-1-2001 was issued, because it is not the subject-matter of dispute, and the application for prospecting licence in respect of which that NOC was obtained, met with natural death for the failure of the petitioner attending inspection and survey vide proceedings dated 23-2- 2002 of the fourth respondent. 13. Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, learned Senior counsel while relying upon the above decisions, submits that, the documents under which the vendors of the 7 th respondent and documents of 7 th respondent clearly shows the extent of land and boundaries of the land purchased by them. 13. Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, learned Senior counsel while relying upon the above decisions, submits that, the documents under which the vendors of the 7 th respondent and documents of 7 th respondent clearly shows the extent of land and boundaries of the land purchased by them. Having lost the suit the writ petitioners cannot object the 7 th respondent from enjoying the and purchased under registered sale deed. Therefore, there is no illegality in the proceedings dated 25.09.2014 issued by the 3 rd respondent and hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 14. As seen from the impugned proceedings dated 25.09.2014 issued by the 3 rd respondent, wherein it is observed that: In this connection, It is submitted that on verification of the Resolutions passed by the District Level Screening Committee with regard to issue of NOC measuring an extent of 12.000 Hectares in Sy.No.55/4B of R.L. Puram Village of Chimakurthy Mandal of Prakasam District in favour of M/s. Ashwini Stonex for grant of Quarry Lease for Black Galaxy Granite, it is noticed that the Prakasam DLSC was held on 11.09.2014 under the Chairmanship of the Collector & District Magistrate, Prakasam District has passed resolution No.1. In the resolution it is noticed that the application filed by M/s. Ashwini Stonex for grant of Quarry Lease for Black Galaxy Granite over an extent of R.L. Puram Village of ChimakurthyMandal, Prakasam has sent report of Joint Inspection Team and observed that the applied area is classified as "Ryotwarl Patta" as per the Revenue records and resolved to recommend for issue of NOC over an extents of Ac.11.50 cents as against the applied areas of 12.000 Hectares in Sy.No.55/4B in favour of M/s. Ashwini Stonexsubject to the outcome of the appeals/W.Ps pending before the Hon'bleHigh Court Andhra Pradesh with regard to the applied area. 15. 15. It is pertinent to mention here, the suit in O.S No.15/2000 on the file of I Additional District, Ongole, which was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the vendors of the 7 th respondent as parties i.e., defendants No.4 and 5 therein, in which, a common judgment was pronounced, wherein, it is observed that, the plaintiffs have filed the above suit for declaration of title to the plaint schedule property; (b) for permanent injunction against the defendants and (c) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 41, 42 i..e, District Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer from issuing No Objection Certificate to defendants 4 to 8, 19 to 21, 27, 36, 50 to 54; etc…. 16. In the said common judgment, the trial Court observed that,in these suits Defendants 21 and 22 who are the plaintiffs in O.S.15/2000 and plaintiff in O.S.5/2002 are claiming title through Telikepalli Arundhathamma. Telikepalli Arundhathamma eventhough alive during the trial, was not produced in O.S.15/2000 or in O.S.5/02 to prove her case. The plaintiffs and other defendants are contending that the 1" defendant Telikepalli Arundhathamma in O.S.5/02 is not the wife of Telikepalli Ramakrishnaiah son of Gopalakrishnaiah and she is the wife of Telikepalli Ramakrishna Shastry, an Ayurvedic Doctor who worked at Arakatavemula village of Rajupalem Mandal of Cuddapah district. It is further observed that, the plaintiffs in O.S.15/2000 and O.S.5/02 failed to prove that their vendor is Telikepalli Arundhathamma wife of Ramakrishnaiah son of Gopalaiah. They also failed to prove that Telikepalli Ramakrishnaiah was having any land in S.No.55/48. None of the documents prior to 1991 Telikepalli Ramakrishnaiah son of Gopalaiah was party. Even after the death of Telikepalli Ramakrishnaiah, Arundhathamma did not file Land Ceiling Declaration in the year 1975. This also goes to show that Telikepalli Ramakrishnaiah or his wife Arundhathamma have no right in the land in S.No.55/4-B. So, the sales covered Ex.B5, B8, B9 and B.10=Ac 14.44 will not pass any title to defendants No.1 and 2. It was clearly established that the defendants No.1 and 2 have purchased 4- acres out of which Ac 14.44 cents has to be deducted. 17. This Court further observed that, the trail Court has framed an additional issue that whether the husband of T.Arundhathamma, vendor of D.21 and D.22 is Ramanakrishna Sastri, S/o. Gopala Krishnaiah or Ramakrishnaiah S/o Gopala Krishnaiah? 18. 17. This Court further observed that, the trail Court has framed an additional issue that whether the husband of T.Arundhathamma, vendor of D.21 and D.22 is Ramanakrishna Sastri, S/o. Gopala Krishnaiah or Ramakrishnaiah S/o Gopala Krishnaiah? 18. Admittedly, the suit in O.S.No.15/2000 was filed by defendants 21 and 22 of O.S.16/2000 as O.S.No.54/1994 on the file of Addl. Sub Court, Ongole against defendants 1 to 65 stating that they have purchased the suit schedule property of 15 acres in S.No.55/4-B from Defendant No.56 T.Arundhathamma under agreement Ex:B4, dated 21.11.91. `1On 4.4.92 and 10.1.92 they paid Rs.30,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively. Further the O.S No.5/2002 was filed by Aparna Rock Exports rep. by its Managing Director Naidu Varahaswamy against the 1 st defendant, Telikepalli Arundhathamma, 2 nd defendant Telikepalli Ramakrishnaiah s/o Subbaiah, 3 rd defendant Bathina Narasimha Rao (defendant No.21 in OS No.16/2000) Rayani Sreenivasa Rao (defendant No.22 in OS No.16/2000) stating that the name of the husband of Arundhathamma finds place in revenue records as joint pattadar and that Thirupathaiah branch people sold away their share to the 2 nd defendant and T Ramaswamy Sarma prior to 1950 and in the year 1964 or 1965 husband of defendant No.1 and 10 made oral arrangement as per which husband of 1 st defendant was given 30 acres in a single plot S No.52, 53 part of S No.54,48, 47-B,51-B as per their survey records. 19. It is to be noted in the said judgment that, the said Arundhathamma sold 10 acres under agreement of sale Ex.B52, dated 22.11.91 and under Ex.B53, dated 22.12.93. They stated that the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 colluded and brought into existence fictitious sale deeds and that the actual extent of 55/4-B is Ac.39.56 cents only. Therefore, it was already held that Arundhathamma has no right in the suit schedule property much less to the extent claimed by the plaintiff, defendants No.3 and 4 of the suit. So, ExB68 sale deed dated 26.7.2001 is not a valid document. By recording the above oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit in OS No.15//2000 with costs. 20. So, ExB68 sale deed dated 26.7.2001 is not a valid document. By recording the above oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit in OS No.15//2000 with costs. 20. This Court also further observed that in the Appeal Suit in A.S No.697 of 2010 which was filed by the petitioner herein before the combined High Court along with ASMP No.1913 of 2010, wherein this Court has granted interim injunction restraining respondents No.24 to 28 from granting No Objection Certificate in respect of the land to an extent of Ac 14.44 cents in Sy No.55/4B of R.L.puram Vilalge, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the appeal. Further held that, the interim injunction is limited in respect of the land to an extent of Ac 15.00 cents in which the petitioners are claiming right, title and interest. 21. It is pertinent to mention here the G.O.Ms.No.2 Revenue (Assignments.I) Department, dated 02.01.2013, with regard to Uniform guidelines for issuance of “NOC”, wherein the Government after careful examination of the matter, hereby issued the following y form guidelines for issue of "NOCs" in respect of licenses for mining lease and quarry lease etc. In supersession of all the existing orders on the subject matter. However, Assistant Director Mines and Geology concerned shall receive applications as per the procedure in vogue. (i) Joint Inspection Team consisting of Revenue Divisional Officer, Divisional Forest Officer and Assistant Director (Mines and Geology) should Inspect the proposed land and submit detailed report to the District Collector within (30) days after receipt of the application for grant of licence for Mining Lease / Quarry Lease; (ii) Wherever the DKT lands are proposed for Mining / Quarry, the assignees should be given preference for mining / quarry lease; (iii) A society in the name of Joint Mining Cooperative Society has to form, where large chunk of DKT lands are proposed for mining and the Committee has to take up the mining activities as per the existing rules. In the event of Joint Cooperative Society not in a position to do so, arrangement should be made to pay royalty to the assignees; (iv) The lands which are needed for community purposes like festivals, fairs, religious activities etc are to be avoided as far as possible; (v) The lands which are needed for future public purpose like providing house- sites to weaker sections, are to be discarded as far as possible; (vi) A District Level Screenign Committee may be constgituted under the Chairmanship of the District Collector with the following composition to take collective decisions on issue of “NOCs” 1 District Collector Chairman 2 Joint Collector Member 3 RDO- concerned Member 4 Executive Engineer Pollution Control Board Member 5 District Forest Officer Member 6 Tahsildar concerned Member 7 Assistant Director (Mines & Geology) Member- Convenor 22. On hearing the submissions, it is the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that this Court while disposing of WP No.11536 of 2011 filed by M/s Ashwini Stonex-7 th respondent herein directed the 5 th respondent (Tahsildar, Chimakurthy) to send his report to the 2 nd respondent (Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Ongole) indicating the availability, category and classification of land, for grant of quarry lease in respect of the land in question as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. In pursuance of the same, the Tahsildar, have inspected the land in question align with the Mandal Surveyor, Mandal Revenue Inspector and the concerned VRO of R.L Puram village on 22.5.2011 and found that “As seen from the said records, it is found that no names are recorded under Pattadar-Owner columns against Sy No.55- 4B for the full extent of Ac.39.56. But, in Form-1 Register of Rights, it is written with pencil against this S.No. that certain Court Cases are pending. But the applicant produced certain registered documents, orders of Civil Court to establish his title/right over the land which are discussed hereunder. 23. Further, it is observed from the said report that, wherein it was also clearly recorded in the said report that “In this connection, I submit that no objections have been received against grant of quarry lease in the aforesaid S.No from any body. 23. Further, it is observed from the said report that, wherein it was also clearly recorded in the said report that “In this connection, I submit that no objections have been received against grant of quarry lease in the aforesaid S.No from any body. The proposed land for quarrying block granite is at distance of about 2 KMs away from the dwelling locality of any Village. The basic value for the adjoining private/patta lands is about Rs.6,00,000/- per Acre. There are no trees, tombs, grave yards or valuable structures in the lands proposed for grant of quarry lease in S.No. 55/4B of R.L.Puram village” 24. Moreover, it was clearly mentioned by the Tahsildar that “Sri Chunduri Venkata Rao, Advocate, Ongole has issued a STATUTORY LEGAL NOTICE under instructions of his client M/S Aparna Rock Exports represented by its Managing Partner Sri Nayudu Varahaswami, ongole to 1. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole 2. The Director of Mines and Geology. Hyderabad. 3. The District Collector. Ongole 4. The Tahsildar, Chimakurthy and 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole on 23-2011 with a request to them not to grant any NOC and Mining lease in favour of anybody in respect of the land covered by S.No.55/4 of R.L.Puram village till the disposal of civil appeal suits in A.S.No.697/2010, 879/2010, 792/2010, 906/2010, 57/2011,60/2011,91/2011 and 93/2011 on the file of Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and till passing of final decree in O.S.No.183/1932 on the file of DMC, Ongole. But the fact in this case is that the name of the applicant is not mutated in the revenue records in spite of Registered Sale deeds in his favour. There are no ridges formed to identify the extent covered by the extents mentioned in Ex. No.1,Ex.2, Ex.3 and Ex. No.4. Also an extent of Ac. 14.44 or Ac 15.00 covered by stay by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P is not identifiable in view of several litigations and court notices issued by the parties.. 25. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that, the petitioners herein lost their suit and they have no right in respect of the land in which the 7 th respondent has applied for quarry lease. Further, the injunction granted in both the appeals is in respect of the lands covered by Ex.B5, B8, B9 and B10. Further, the injunction granted in both the appeals is in respect of the lands covered by Ex.B5, B8, B9 and B10. There is no injunction in respect of the land purchased by the 7 th respondent. It is clearly established that the documents under which the vendors of the 7 th respondent and documents of 7 th respondent that the extent of land and boundaries of the land purchased by them and it is a private property Having lost the suit the petitioners cannot object the 7 th respondent from enjoying the land purchased under registered sale deed. 26. Therefore, this Court found no merit in the instant petition and devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 27. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.