IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11412 of 2007 Between: M/s. Raja Rajeshwari Granites, rep. by its Managing Partner Ch.Dayakar Reddy S/o.Laxma Reddy R/o.H.No.2-10-459, Teachers' Colony, Waddepalli Phase-II, Hanmakonda, Warangal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad, Karimnagar. 2 Divisional Forest Officer (West), Karimnagar. 3 Forest Range Officer (West), Karimnagar. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in interfering and causing obstruction in quarrying operations in Sy.No.496/1 measuring to an extent of 1 hectare situate in Damera village of Elkaturti Mandal in Karimnagar District being carried on as per the quarrying lease granted in proceedings by the Director, Mines and Geology, Hyderabad in ﬁle No. 2568/R6- 1/2006 dt:26-3-2007 and be pleased to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.RAMESH SAGAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following : ORDER: M/s.Raja Rajeswari Granites represented by its Managing Partner Ch.Dayakar Reddy is the petitioner in this writ petition. Ch.Dayakar Reddy is owner and pattedar to an extent of Ac.5.22 guntas comprising Survey No.496/1 situated in Damera village, Elkaturti Mandal, Karaimnagar District. He along with his brothers viz., Anna Reddy, Narayan Reddy, Venkat Reddy and Krishna Reddy inherited the land bearing Survey No.494/1. Ch.Dayakar Reddy was issued title deed and pattedar passbook in his favour for his entitlement and share in Survey No.496/1 vide Patta No.187 and Pass Book No.247736. Survey No.496/1 comprises hillock and it contains deposits of black granite. He submitted an application on 17.07.2006 to the Department of Mines and Geology for grant of quarry lease in favour of M/s.Raja Rajeswari Granites for extracting black granite in an extent of one hector in Survey No.496/1 for a period of two years as per Rule 12(5)(1) of the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. His application came to be considered and the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology granted lease on certain conditions such as paying dead rent, security deposit, executing lease deed and paying seigniorage fee etc. He executed lease deed on 19.04.1997 and thereafter, the Director of Miens and Geology, Hyderabad permitted M/s.Raja Rajeswari Granites to carry out the works in the leased area of one hector in Survey No.496/1. The Divisional Forest Oﬃcer, Warangal (North), in Rc.10/16H9/51, dated 19.07.1975, took a stand that Survey No.496 of Inuparathigutta of Damera Village was under the control of the Forest Department prior to 1965 and was proposed for reservation. On 17.05.2007 at about 11.00 a.m., according to the writ petitioner, forest oﬃcials-respondents came to the site and caused obstruction for conducting mining operations and asked him to produce the orders granted by the competent authority. Thereupon, the petitioner produced Xerox copies of orders passed by the Director, Mines and Geology and lease deed executed in favour of the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Karimnagar. The respondents have been contemplating to interfere with the mining activity of the petitioner over an extent of one hector in Survey No.496/1 of Damera village of Elkaturti Revenue Mandal in Karimnagar District. Hence, the writ petition assailing the action of the respondents in interfering with the mining activity being carried on in one hector of Survey No.496/1 of Damera village. 2. The respondents ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit. M.Prabhakar Reddy, Forest Range Oﬃcer (West), Karimnagar District, has sworn to the counter-aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter- aﬃdavit that joint inspection report for the Block Inuparathigutta was conducted by Syed Abbas Hussain, Deputy Collector, Huzurabad and Range Oﬃcer in 1354 Fasali. Pingali Venkatram Reddy was pattedar of Survey No.496 of Damera village to the extent of Ac.260.20 guntas. This land was also included in the Block since it is wholly comprises of hills covered with forest. It was proposed to constitute the lands falling within the boundaries described under a proposed reserve forest under Section 4 of the Hyderabad Forest Act, 1355 Fasli, from the date of publication of the notiﬁcation in the oﬃcial gazette. As per the application dated 07.07.1995 submitted to the Divisional Forest Oﬃcer, Warangal (North), by Ch.Venkat Reddy of Damera village, Huzurabad Taluk, the Divisional Forest Oﬃcer, Warangal North vide Rc.No.10/16/H9/51, dated 19.07.1975, informed that the Survey No.496 of Damera village, Huzurabad Taluq, Karimnagar District, is under the control of Forest Department prior to 1965, which is included in the forest block, Inuparathigutta proposed for reservation to be notiﬁed under Section 4 of the Hyderabad Forest Act, 1355 Fasli. In response to the notice issued by the Additional Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Land Revenue Tribunal, Karimnagar; Ch.Venkat Reddy has ﬁled the statement on 07.08.1975 producing the letter of the Divisional Forest Oﬃcer, Warangal North. The Additional Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Karimnagar had arrived at the conclusion without obtaining no objection certiﬁcate from the Divisional Forest Oﬃcer, Warangal North as required in Land Ceiling Act and straight away issued proceedings under C.C.No.2/HZB/75, dated 24.10.1975, accepting the surrender of lands bearing Survey No.496 of Dameral village proposed by Ch.Venkat Reddy. Proceedings were not marked to the Divisional Forest Oﬃcer, Warangal North and therefore, the action of the Additional Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Karimnagar, is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. The term ‘forest land’ occurring in Section 2, will not only include ‘forest’ as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government Record irrespective of its ownership. Survey No.496 is a hillock, fully covered with forest growth and proposed to be notiﬁed as Reserve Forest Block, Inuparathigutta. Therefore, the title deed issued to Ch.Dayakar Reddy S/o.Laxma Reddy, Resident of Damera village, in respect of Survey No.496 to the extent of one hector by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer now called as Tahsildar, Elkathurthy is void and nonest. Physically the demarcation of Survey No.496 as claimed by the petitioner is not carried out on the ﬁeld nor any supporting documents are produced by the petitioner before the Divisional Forest Oﬃcer, Flying Squad Party, Karimnagar, during the course of inspection. Grant of lease by the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, in favour of the petitioner in respect of one hector of land in Survey No.496/1 of Damera village without obtaining concurrence from the Forest Department is contrary and void. The Additional Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Karimnagar, the Mandal Revenue oﬃcer, Elkathurty, the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Karimnagar and the Director, Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, did not follow the procedure contemplated in Land Ceiling Act and not obtained concurrence from the Forest Department, as per Govt. Memo. No.3778/For.I(1)2001-I, dated 20.04.2001 E.F.S. & T (For-I) Department. 3. The petitioner ﬁled reply aﬃdavit stating that his ancestors were the owners and pattedars even prior to the issue of alleged notiﬁcation under the provisions of the Hyderabad Forest Act, 1355 Fasli and their ownership rights never extinguished in Survey Nu.496 since no further steps were taken by the Government for reservation as stated in the counter- affidavit. Paras. 8 and 9 of the reply aﬃdavit need to be noted and they are thus: “8. I submit that Sy.No.496 is totally hillock and there is no forest growth on the said hillock. It is not disputed by the respondents that there are deposits of black granite in the hillock. The rich minerals and deposits of black granite are essential for Industrial Development of the State. The Government have issued G.O.Ms., dated 16.02.2002 directing the Department of Mines and Geology to identify the properties having rich minerals, wealth and such properties shall not be used for any other purpose other than mining. 9. I submit that Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad has granted mining lease for extracting the black granite in one hector in Sy.No.496/1 of Damera village in favour of C.Pradeep Reddy in proceedings No.12199/R7-1/96, dated 18-7-1997. The said Pratap Reddy has been conducting the business since then and sold the extracted granite blocks to M/s.Baba Sai, Nalgonda. Similarly, the Director of Mines and Geology has granted mining lease in favour of C.Krishna Reddy for 1 hector of area in Sy.No.496/1 in the year 1997, the respondents did not raise any objections while C.Pradeep Reddy has been conducting quarrying operations in Sy.No.496/1 since the year 1997.” 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the land bearing Survey No.496/1 has not been classiﬁed as forest land and no notiﬁcation has been issued as provided in Section 15 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, and thus, the action of the respondents in interfering with the mining activity of the petitioner in respect of one hector in Survey No.496/1 of Damera village is illegal and arbitrary. During the course of his arguments, he took me to the land ceiling declaration ﬁled by Sri Ch.Laxma Reddy, who is no other than the father of the petitioner; the veriﬁcation report of the Deputy Tahsildar and orders passed thereon by the Land Reforms Tribunal. He also took me to the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal in respect of acceptance of surrender of the land bearing Survey No.496 made by Ch.Venkat Reddy towards his excess holding. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing for the respondents submits that in the year 1975, notiﬁcation under Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 was issued in respect of 3750 acres situated in Kottapally, Damera, Yerrapally, Duenoor and Mupparam villages proposing as ‘reserved forest’ from the date of the notiﬁcation in the oﬃcial gazette and the land in Survey No.496 of Damera village forms part and parcel of proposed lands and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to carry on mining activity in the said land. 7. History of forest laws needs to be noted and it is thus: In Hyderabad State, forests were considered subservient to the interest of agriculture and were consequently administered by the District Oﬃcials. A separate Forest Department was created in 1277 F (1867 A.D.) during the premiership of Sir Salar Jung. It was placed under non-professional oﬃcers for nearly two decades and its sole work was to protect and sell eight or nine valuable species of trees, designated as ‘Reserved’ or ‘Irsali’ timber under a set of simple rules. The rest of the produce and administration remained in the hands of the district oﬃcials. There thus existed a sort of dual control on the management of forest. This system was found to be very unsatisfactory. Cultivation in the forest was permitted indiscriminately by the Revenue oﬃcers and under the cloak of clearing land for cultivation, millions of valuable timber trees were destroyed. During the same period schemes for expansion of cultivation embodying rules to re-populate deserted villages were brought into existence and consequently lakhs of acres of forests were absorbed and passed into the hands of individuals. Later in the year 1887, the Government secured the services of a trained European Oﬃcer, Mr.Ballantine, I.F.S. from Berar. He remained in the service of H.E.H. the Nizam till about the middle of 1893. During this period he was able to check some of the worst abuses in the department, notably the system of unrestricted felling under the darkhast system. He also selected several tracts for Reserves. In the year 1303 F. (1893 A.D.) the Government declared vast tracts covered by Forest growth as protected forests and placed them under the sole charge of Forest Department. Deﬁnite circular instructions were issued by the Government for the administration of these protected areas. To have legal control over the forests, a Forest Act was enacted in 1310 F (1900 A.D.), which was more or less a consolidation of the instructions embodied in Government circulars. In the areas other than protected, the number of reserved timber species was increased. The eﬀort of the department was directed mainly towards the survey and reservation of forest areas, the introduction of felling schemes and works of improvement, systematic exploitation of forest produce, the development of a sustained revenue and the consolidation and conservation of a big valuable forest estate. The Forest Act of 1310 Fasli was found inadequate for the growing requirements of Forest Department. It was therefore, superseded by a revised Forest Act of 1326 F (1916 A.D.) which laid down the foundation for the establishment of real forest administration. This Act was again repealed by Hyderabad Forest Act of 1355 F (1945 A.D.) which was modeled on the lines of Indian Forest Act, 1927. Chapter II of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 deals with Reserved Forests. Under Section 4 whenever it is proposed to constitute any land as a reserved forest, the Government shall publish a notiﬁcation in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette and in the District Gazette concerned specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of such land etc. Chapter III deals with Protected Forests. Under Section 24 the Government may, by notiﬁcation, declare any forest or waste land which is the property of the Government or which is placed under their control for management and which is not included in a reserved forest, to be a protected forest and, on such declaration, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply to such protected forest. For better appreciation, I may extract Sections 4 and 24 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, which read as hereunder: “S.4. Notiﬁcation by Government :- (1) Whenever it is proposed to constitute any land as a reserved forest, the Government shall publish a notiﬁcation in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette and in the District Gazette concerned in any; (a) specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of such land; (b) declaring that it is proposed to constitute such land as reserved forest; (c) appointing a Forest Settlement Oﬃcer to consider the objections, if any, against the declaration under Clause (b) and to enquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of any rights claimed by, or alleged to exist in favour of, any person in or over any land comprised within such limits, or to any forest produce of such land, and to deal with the same as provided in this Chapter. Explanation:- (1) For the purpose of Clause (a), it shall be suﬃcient to describe the limits of the land by any well-known or readily intelligible boundaries, such as roads, rivers, bridges and the like. (2) A person appointed to be a Forest Settlement Oﬃcer under Clause [c] of sub-section (1) shall be an oﬃcer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of a Revenue Divisional Officer. (3) Any forest oﬃcer may represent the Forest Department at the inquiry conducted under this Chapter.” S.24. Protected forests:- (1) The Government may, by notiﬁcation, declare any forest or waste land which is the property of the Government or which is placed under their control for management and which is not included in a reserved forest, to be a protected forest and, on such declaration, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply to such protected forest. (2) No such notiﬁcation shall be made in respect of any land unless the nature and extent of the rights of the government and of private persons in or over such land have been inquired into and recorded at a survey of settlement, or in such other manner as may be prescribed and every each record shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved: Provided that, where in the case of any land, the Government consider that such inquiry and record are necessary, but that the completion thereof will occupy such length of time, as in the meantime, to endanger the rights of the Government, the Government may, pending such inquiry and record, declare such land to be protected forest but such declaration shall not aﬀect or abridge any existing rights of individuals or communities.” After issuance of a notiﬁcation under Section 4, a proclamation under Section 6 is required to be made by the Forest Development Oﬃcer. Under Section 8 an enquiry is to be conducted with regard to the objections raised for Section 6 proclamation. 8. Though the respondents contend that land bearing Survey No.496/1 is a forest land, no material has been placed on record to substantiate it. Chintalaphani Laxma Reddy and his sons ﬁled land ceiling declaration. Brothers of Chintalaphani Laxma Reddy also ﬁled land ceiling declaration. In their declarations they included Survey No.496. The Veriﬁcation Oﬃcer also included Survey No.496 in the holding of Chintalaphani Laxma Reddy and his brothers. The Land Reforms Tribunal after due enquiry included 39 acres in Survey No.496 in the holding of Chintalaphani Laxma Reddy and his sons. Indeed a point has been formulated in the order as to whether Survey No.496 of Damera village is to be excluded in the holding of the declarant. The Tribunal on thorough enquiry included Survey No.496 admeasuring 39 acres in the holding of Chintalaphani Laxma Reddy and his sons and found them as non-surplus holders. When Chintalaphani Venkat Reddy surrendered Survey No.496 towards his excess holding, an objection was raised by the Divisional Forest Oﬃcer, Warangal. The said objection came to be dealt with by the Land Reforms Tribunal in its order dated 24.10.1975. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder: “4. An enquiry was held on 24.10.1975. The declarant was absent. The Spl. Tahsildar (Land Reforms) was present and raised an objection stating that the surrendered lands were not acceptable as they re uncultivable lands. But the contention of the Spl.Tahsildar (L.R.) is rejected as the said area is also deﬁned as land under this Act and as the said area has also been taken into consideration, while computing the total holding of the said declarant. Further the Divisional Forest Oﬃcer, Warangal (North) has also replied through his oﬃce Rc.No.10/16/H9/51, dated 19.7.1975 stating that Sy.No.496 is under the control of Forest Department prior to 1965, which is included in Forest Block, Inuparathi Gutta, proposed for reservation to be notiﬁed U/S.4. As such, it is deemed that the Forest Department has no objection in this matter, as no acquisition proceedings have been taken up by them so far. 5. Hence, the surrender of the following lands made by the person concerned are hereby approved in accordance with the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act. However, the conditions stipulated in Section 12 are not applicable in this case. Village Sy.No. Description Extent Damera (v) 496 Dry Ac. Cents 54.14” It is crystal clear from the material placed on record that Land Reforms Tribunal included 39 acres in Survey No.496 in the holding of Chintalaphani Laxma Reddy and declared him as surplus holder. So far no notiﬁcation has been issued by the Government as provided under Section 15 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 declaring S.No.496/1 as ‘reserved forest’. 9. In view of the above discussion, I ﬁnd that the action of the respondents in interfering with the quarrying operations of the petitioner in one hector comprising Survey No.496/1 of Damera village is arbitrary and illegal. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed granting the relief as prayed for. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:30th July, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}