M.Sugunamma, W/O M.Pentaiah, v. The Government Of Andhra Pradesh,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.20143 OF 2012 DATED:29-7-2015 Between:

M. Sugunamma ... Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary Forest Department Secretariat Hyderabad and another ... Respondents ... Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Mr. Venkata Mayur COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: G.P. for Forests (TS) THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of land admeasuring Ac.3.06 gts., in Sy.No.51/62 of of Kandlapalli Village, Pudur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (for short, 'the subject land'), as illegal and arbitrary.

I have heard Mr. Venkata Mayur, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Forests (TS). The petitioner averred that she was assigned the subject land by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Pudur Mandal, in the year 2005 and final patta certificate was issued and that since then she has been cultivating the subject land. She has also pleaded that she was granted pattadar pass book and title deed. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have been interfering with the petitioner's possession of the land on the ground that it forms part of reserve forest land. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2 wherein it is inter alia pleaded that Kandlapally Forest Block was notified under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, (for short, 'the Act') vide G.O. Ms. No.

127, Energy & Forest (For.II-2) Department, dt.17.6.1994, including Sy. Nos.51, 52 and 55 of Kandlapally Village, admeasuring Acs.452.00, and the same was published in the Ranga Reddy District Gazette No.48, dt.8.6.1999. That subsequently proposals under Section 15 of the Act were approved by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District vide Lr. No.E2/2057/2007, dt.01.03.2008. That as per the instructions of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, an extent of 75 hectares of Kandlapally Forest Block (Sy. No.

plantations. The counter affidavit has furnished the details of the other areas over which eucalyptus plantation was made and harvested. It is however stated that the land claimed by the petitioner in Sy. No.51/62 is in the middle of the Kandlapally reserve forest area and there is no cultivation over the said land.

From the averments contained in the counter affidavit, it is clear that final notification envisaged under Section 15 of the Act has not been published. The learned Government Pleader for Forests (TS) has not disputed this position. Under Section 20 of the Act the forest officials are vested with various powers in respect of reserve forest only. In my opinion, unless a final notification under Section 15 of the Act is published, the land claimed by the respondents cannot be treated as reserve forest and the respondents cannot prevent the petitioner, who admittedly holds an assignment patta granted by the revenue authorities, from enjoying the property.

In this view of the matter, interference by the respondents with the petitioner's possession is without any authority of law and the respondents are accordingly restrained from causing such interference until a final notification under Section 15 of the Act is published. If, after publication of such notice, the respondents find that the petitioner is in occupation of reserve forest, they shall be free to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 20(3) of the Act and take an appropriate action.

Subject to the liberty given to the respondents as above, the writ petition is allowed.

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.25810 of 2012 and W.V.M.P. No.3847 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

_______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29-7-2015 bnr