THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 24445 of 2000 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No.543 Forests and Rural Development (Forests-III) Department dated 2.6.1976 of the Government of Andhra Pradesh as arbitrary, illegal and unenforceable; consequently, to direct the respondents to forbear from interfering in the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac.17-35 cents in S.No.435, situated at Koyyam village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners and possessors of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.17-35 cents, located in S.No.435 of Koyyam village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam Distries. They are in possession and enjoyment of the same without interference from anybody. They have purchased the said lands by way of registered sale deeds bearing Nos. 163/94 and 165/94 dated 8.3.1994 and 9.3.1994, from one Dumpa Ramappadu s/o Late Dumpa Sattayya, Dumpa Ganeshu s/o Dumpa Ramappadu, Dumpa Appalaramudu s/o Late Dumpa Sattayya and Dumpa Yerramma w/o Late Dumpa Sattayya, all legal heirs of Late Dumpa Sattayya. Their vendors, in turn, had bought the lands from Majji Suryanarayana s/o Late Majji Venkanna, Patruni Sethamma w/o Gaddenna, Sidipalli Yerukamma w/o Appalaswamy, who are the original land owners. As per the Survey & Settlement Records, the said Majji Suryanarayana and others were the original pattadars of the said land and were enjoying the same. Subsequent to their selling the said land to Late Dumpa Sattayya, the father of the petitioners’ vendors, the name of Dumpa Sattayya was recorded in No.3 Adangal, as the owner/pattadar. Thereafter, on their purchase, the petitioners were issued with pattadar passbooks and their names were entered in the revenue records by 4th respondent, after thoroughly following the procedure prescribed under the law. The petitioners have been paying land revenue regularly and they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. While that being so, 2nd and 3rd respondents-authorities have been constantly and continuously trying to interfere with their possession, claiming that the lands are notified as ‘protected forest’ and as such they are liable to be declared as offenders under the Forest Act. In fact, criminal prosecution was also launched against the petitioners vide S.T.C. No. 111 of 1997 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, which ended in acquittal on 21.8.1999. In the said judgment, it was held that the respondents- authorities did not dispute possession of the petitioners over the subject lands and the petitioners cannot be said to be trespassers and that they continue to be in possession of the said lands under valid registered sale deeds and their possession was recognized by the Revenue Department. During trial of the said criminal case, for the first time, the respondents-authorities have produced G.O.Ms.No.543 dated 2.6.1976 showing that the lands in question come within the zone of ‘protected forest’. According to the petitioners, no notice of any kind was issued to them or to their predecessors-in-interest and no enquiry was conducted under Section 24 of the A.P. Forests Act, 1967 for declaring the lands in S.No.435 of Koyyam village as ‘protected forest’. The subject lands are purely private lands and the respondents have no manner of right whatsoever to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject lands. Therefore, issuance of G.O.Ms.No.543 dated 2.6.1976 behind the back of the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest is arbitrary and illegal and liable to be declared as such. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioners and it is stated that the lands which the petitioners have encroached are surveyed by demarcating the boundary stones, after conducting enquiry. The process of declaring and notifying the land as ‘protected forest’ by the Joint Collector was complied with only when the Joint Collector, in his capacity as ex-officio Settlement Officer, has decided that the entire land belongs to the Government. The payment of land cess having patta passbooks does not confer any right on the petitioners and the objections raised by the petitioners in this regard are not tenable. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. The petitioners have categorically asserted at para 3 of the writ affidavit that the name of Majji Suryanarayana and others were referred to in the settlement register as pattadar and thereafter it was purchased by Dumpa Satayya, who is the father of the petitioners’ vendors. After the purchase of the subject lands by the petitioners, they were issued with pattadar passbooks and their names were entered in the revenue records by 4th respondent after thoroughly following the procedure prescribed by law. These facts are not denied by the respondents categorically in the counter filed by them and there is no whisper as to the entries made in the settlement register even prior to the issuance of the said G.O. Except saying that the procedure required under Section 24 of the A.P. Forests Act, 1967 was followed, no details were furnished as to when the notice was served, on whom it was served, how it was served etc. All this would show that the respondents are making futile efforts to dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands, in the guise of ‘protected forest’, which cannot be permitted in the eye of law. When Majji Suryanarayana was shown as pattadar in the settlement register itself, it is the bounden duty of the concerned Forest Officer to enquire into and issue notices against Majji Suryanarayana or Dumpa Sattayya or the petitioners herein. No such procedure was followed. The Settlement Register is final and can confer title and possession in favour of the pattadars, as per the Settlement Act, 1947. Further, in S.T.C. No. 111 of 1997, the petitioners were acquitted on 21.8.1999 on the ground that they are in possession of the land and their names reflected in the revenue records since long. Further, it is interesting to notice that the respondents have not denied the fact that the petitioners have purchased the subject lands under registered sale deeds and pattadar passbooks were issued in their favour and they are in possession of the same since the date of purchase. Under those circumstances, the only course left open to the respondents is to file regular civil suit, if they are really interested in claiming title over the subject lands for declaring the same as ‘protected forest’. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that inclusion of the land held by the petitioners in an extent of Ac.17-35 cents in S.No.435 of Koyyam village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District is arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.543 Forests and Rural Development (Forests-III) Department dated 2.6.1976 is liable to be set aside to the extent of the land held by the petitioners i.e. Ac.17-35 cents in S.No.435 of Koyyam village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District and it is accordingly set aside to the said extent. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 5-02-2010. MVB.