IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.28919 OF 2010 DATED:22.11.2010 Between: Rangu Balagoud … Petitioner And The District Collector Nizamabad District and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.28919 OF 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction by way of a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in not taking any action on the representations of the petitioner dt.22.1.2007, 30.6.2008, 23.11.2009, 11.1.2010 and 23.10.2010, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is a toddy tapper and he was allotted certain toddy trees. It is stated that in the widening of the road and construction of a bridge undertaken by the National Highway Authority of India, the trees, which were allotted to the petitioner, were removed. It is stated that the petitioner has filed representations before the respondent authorities for plantation of trees and allotment of such trees to the petitioner, in vain. It is not in dispute that one Sri K. Gangaiah is the owner of the land where the trees were raised. With regard to the petitioner, he is only a licensee to tap the said trees. If the trees, which are allotted on the licence of the petitioner are cut, the only remedy of the petitioner is to make a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 to allot some other trees on the licence of the petitioner. When the trees, which were cut, belong to a third party, who is not aggrieved, the petitioner, who is only a licensee for tapping toddy of the trees, cannot seek either plantation or allotment of trees in lieu of the trees, which were cut. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any basis in seeking relief by the petitioner even without making the owner of the trees as a party respondent to the writ petition. However, it is made clear that if the trees allotted to the petitioner were cut in widending of the road and construction of bridge, it is open to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 to allot some other alternative trees, in lieu of the trees which were cut, and if such a representation is filed, I am sure that the respondents 1 and 2 will consider the same and take a decision as expeditiously as possible. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 22.11.2010 bnr