THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 12460 OF 2008 Dated 7th July, 2010 Between: Adusumilli Muktheswara Rao …Petitioner And The Divisional Forest Officer and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad Counsel for the respondents: G.P for Forests The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 23.10.1999 passed by respondent No.2 and judgment dated 31.03.2008 of learned VI-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna District, whereby he has confirmed the order of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Forests. The petitioner filed an application before respondent No.2 for deletion of Acs.16.33 cents in various survey numbers from the proposed reserve forest. The said application was partly allowed to the extent of Acs.2.03 cents and Acs.2.60 cents in Survey Nos.305/1 and 305/2 respectively and the application for the deletion of the balance lands was dismissed. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the learned VI-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna District. The said appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 31.03.2008. While dismissing the said appeal, the learned appellate Jude held that the petitioner has not filed any authentic documents to show his title over the properties in question and that the lands in respect of which the Forest Settlement Officer refused to delete were assigned lands and that the assignments were made by the Tahsildar, Vijayawada, in the year 1974 after notification under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for short “the Act”) was issued. The learned Judge has taken note of the finding of the Forest Settlement Officer that the assignments made after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act are not valid in view of Section 7 of the Act and therefore, the claim in respect of the said lands was rejected. At the hearing, Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there was no record to show that the lands were assigned lands and therefore the finding that they were assigned lands cannot be sustained. However, the learned counsel conceded that his client has failed to file any document to show that the lands in question were not assigned lands or that they were covered by private pattas. As the petitioner failed to discharge the initial burden to show that the lands were private patta lands and are not assigned lands, in my opinion, the findings rendered by the Forest Settlement Officer and as confirmed by the learned District Judge that the lands were assigned after publication of notification under Section 4 do not call for any interference. Under Section 7 of the Act, during the interval between the publication of a notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette under Section 4 and the date fixed by the notification under Section 15 of the Act, no right shall be acquired by any person in or over the land included in the notification issued under Section 4 except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the Government or any person in whom such right was vested before the publication of the notification under Section 4 was made. In view of the above uncontroverted facts, the petitioner is not entitled for deletion of the land and the impugned orders are not liable to be interfered with. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order dated 17.06.2008 is vacated. WPMP No.16055 of 2008 and WVMP No.2652 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 7th July, 2010 vrn