IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13119 of 2008 Between: Mohd. Rafiuddin, S/o. Late Mohd. Sirajuddin, R/o. At Changomul Village, Pudur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Divisional Forest Officer, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate order, direction or a writ, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring that the respondents have no jurisdiction, power or any manner of right to enter upon or in any way interfere with the possession and enjoyment of 10 Acres of land in Survey No.124/2, Mirzapur Village, Pudur Mandal, Rangareddy District. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.DEEPAK MISRA Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.13119 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner herein claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of ten (10) acres of land situated in Sy.No.124/2 of Mirzapur Village, Pudur Mandal, R.R. District, having purchased the same under a Registered Sale Deed, dated 28.08.2006. Thereafter, the layout was approved by the Gram Panchayat on 3.10.2006 and the Collector, Rangareddy District had also accorded permission for conversion of the said land into non-agricultural purposes. Pursuant thereto, when the petitioner started developmental activities over the land in question, the 2nd respondent - Forest Range Officer – raised a boundary dispute and removed the fencing erected by the petitioner. At the request of the petitioner, a joint inspection was conducted on 28.1.2008 in the presence of the Forest Range Officer, Vikarabad; Village Revenue Officer, Mirzapr Village; Mandal Revenue Inspector of Pudur Mandal, and Mandal Surveyor and a clear panchanama was recorded. On the basis of the said inspection, boundaries were fixed and the location sketch map was prepared by the Mandal Surveyor on 30.01.2008 and a detailed report was submitted to the Sub-Collector, Vikarabad Division. In spite of the same, the 2nd respondent – Forest Range Officer – had again started interfering with the petitioner’s possession in respect of the land in question and put up a Board stating that the said land belongs to the Forest Department. Though the petitioner made a representation dated 18.5.2008 requesting the 1st respondent – Divisional Forest Officer – to take necessary steps for removal of the Board and to restrain the Forest Range Officer from interfering with the petitioner’s possession in respect of the land in question, the 1st respondent failed to take any action. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the respondents have no jurisdiction, power or any manner of right to enter upon or in any way deal with 10 acres of land situated in Sy.No.124/2 of Mirzapur Village, Pudur Mandal, Rangareddy District. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is claimed that the area in question forms part of Reserve Forest and it was so declared under Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 vide G.O.Ms.No.127, Energy & Forest – II, dated 17.6.1994. It is further claimed that the land purchased by the petitioner forms part of Sy.No.51 of Kandlapally Village which is adjacent to Sy.No.124/2 of Mirzapur Village and that the petitioner’s vendor had misguided the petitioner as to its location. It is further claimed that the survey was taken up by the Forest Range Officer, Vikarabad and during the survey it was found that so- called area falls in Sy.No.51 of Kandlapally Village, Pudur Mandal and the petitioner who had purchased the same without verifying the legal status of the land cannot be granted any relief. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is to be noticed that this Court while issuing Rule Nisi, by order dated 16.12.2008 in WPMP.No.35548 of 2008 directed the 3rd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer - to get the land in question (10 acres of land situated in Sy.No.124/2 of Mirzapur Village) surveyed by the Mandal Surveyor as per the boundaries mentioned in the Registered Sale Deed, dated 28.08.2006 after giving notice to the Forest Range Officer, Vikarabad as well as the petitioner and submit a report together with sketch to this Court. Pursuant to the said order, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued notice dated 2.1.2009 and an inspection was held on 5.1.2009 in the presence of the petitioner, Village Revenue Officer of Mirzapur, Tahsildar of Pudur Mandal, Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records, Vikarabad Division and the Forest Range Officer along with three (3) panchas. In the said inspection, a sketch was prepared showing the boundaries of the land situated in Sy.No.124/2 of Mirzapur Village and the Revenue Divisional Officer submitted a survey sketch prepared at the survey by the Mandal Surveyor as per the boundaries mentioned in the Registered Sale Deed, dated 28.08.2006. The boundary stones were also fixed under a panchanama. The sketch as well as the panchanama along with other documents have been produced before this Court by the 3rd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer - vide his letter dated 7.1.2009. Both the parties are bound by the findings recorded in the said report which shows that the forest board was put up by the 2nd respondent within ten acres of land situated in Sy.No.124/2 purchased by the petitioner under the Registered Sale Deed, dated 28.08.2006. Since the land purchased by the petitioner under the Registered Sale Deed, dated 28.08.2006 has been clearly localized and the boundary stones are fixed up in the inspection held on 5.1.2009 in the presence of all the parties concerned, including the respondents 1 and 2 herein, and none of the parties raised any objection to the report submitted by the 3rd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner is entitled to the declaration as sought for. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 29.07.2009 gbs