THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 28991 OF 2011 ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the first respondent in considering petitioner’s representation dated 3.5.2011 submitted for according permission to cut Casurina trees raised by him in the land admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas in Survey No.74/1 and 76 situated at Poosapatirega Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District expressing his readiness to pay the value of the trees as assessed by the second respondent pursuant to letter No.65/2006, dated 26.5.2011 of the third respondent as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to cut the Casurina trees on payment of the value of the said trees as assessed by the second respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, may be stated as follows: Petitioner and his predecessors have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of various lands including the land admeasuring Ac.2.00 cents in Survey No.74/1 and 76 situated at Poosapatirega Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District, and the revenue authorities issued pattadar pass book an title in respect of the lands except the above said land. The petitioner used to raise dry crops in the entire lands and his name also reflects in revenue records in possessor/enjoyer column. The petitioner raised Casurina Tope in the said land, which is at the stage of harvesting. While so, the third respondent got issued notice dated 10.3.2008 under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act alleging that the said land is a Government land. On submission of explanation of the petitioner, third respondent rejected request of the petitioner for regularization. When the third respondent was causing interference with possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, the latter filed Original Suit No.277 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram against the respondents 1 to 3 for perpetual injunction. But, on the oral instructions of the first respondent to permit the petitioner to harvest the standing Casurina tope, the petitioner withdrew the suit. Thereafter, the third respondent addressed letter dated 26.5.2011 to the second respondent to assess value of the Casurina tope existing on the said land to enable him to conduct public auction. The petitioner submitted a written representation on 3.5.2011 before the first respondent requesting to permit him to cut the Casurina Trees existing on the subject land expressing readiness to pay the value of the trees as assessed by the second respondent. There is no response from the respondent authorities and the petitioner reliably learnt that respondent authorities are making hectic attempts to conduct auction of the Casurina Trees. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that admittedly Casurina garden is on the land in question i.e. in Survey No.74/1 and 76 admeasuring Ac.2.00 cents, raised by the petitioner and that the petitioner is ready to pay value of the trees as assessed by the second respondent, and therefore, he prays to direct the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 3.5.2011. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that the third respondent-Tahsildar addressed a letter to the second respondent-Divisional Forest Officer for assessment of the value of the Casurina garden and after receipt of the same, appropriate decision will be taken on the representation of the petitioner. 5. The factual matrix is not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner raised Casurina garden in the land in question i.e. in Survey No.74/1 and 76 admeasuring Ac.2.00 cents situated at Poosapatirega Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Admittedly, that land does not belong to the petitioner and it is a Government land. Therefore, the petitioner seeks permission to cut the Casurina trees after paying value of the same. The value thereof has to be assessed by the second respondent. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, value of the trees has already been assessed by the second respondent and the proceedings have been forwarded to the third respondent. Therefore, appropriate decision has to be taken by the first respondent on the representation dated 3.5.2011 of the petitioner. 6. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of directing the first respondent to take appropriate decision on the representation dated 3.5.2011 of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the report from the second respondent. Till such time, no auction shall be conducted in respect of the said trees. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 8.11.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 28991 OF 2011 8.11.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 28991 OF 2011 DATED 8.11.2011 Between: Pathivada Appala Narasimhanaidu @ Pathivada Appalanarasimhulu Naidu …Petitioner And The District Collector, Vizianagaram & others …Respondents