IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11316 of 2001 Between: Raja Madhuveeti Yerramraju S/o late Sri Raja Madhuveeti Yerramraju R/o Nallipudi, Gangavaram (M), East Godavari Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Forest Officer Kakinada Division, Kakinada, East Godavari Dist. 2 The Dist. Collector E.G. Dist., Kakinada 3 The Govt. of A.P. Secretary Energy & Environmental Sciences Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 4 The Manager Andhra Bank West Gonagudem Branch, Korukonda (M), East Godavari Dist. 5 Palacharla Anantha Lakshmi W/o late Janaki rama Rao Z Ragampeta (V), Gandepalli (M), E.G.Dist. 6 Palacharla Venkanna Choudary S/o late Janaki Rama Rao Z Ragampeta (V), Gandepalli (M), E.G.Dist. 7 Palacharla Ganiraju Choudary S/o late Janaki Rama Rao Z Ragampeta (V), Gandepalli (M), E.G.Dist. .....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 to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring proceeding of the 1st respondent vide Ref.No.4216/79-M dt: 14-4-2001 in refusing to refund of the regeneration charges and security deposits to the petitoner in respect of Nellipudi and Koramgondi Mukhasa lands of Yellavaram Mandal, E.G. Dist., is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Forest Act and Rules and direct the respondent authorities to refund the regeneration charges and security deposits in respect of Korumagandi and Nallipudi Mukhas lands, Yellavaram (M), E.G. Dist. to the Petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.11316 of 2001 ORDER: One Sri Raja Maduveeti Yerramraju, was Mukasadar for lands in Nellipudi and Kuramgondi of Gangavaram Mandal of East Godavari District. The lands were covered by forest growth. He approached the officials of the forest department seeking permission to fell the trees and to transport them. He executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one Sri P.Janaki Ramrao for this purpose. As a result of the orders passed by this court, permits were granted and the Mukasadar was required to deposit Rs.1,47,175/- towards regeneration charges. The District Forest Officer- first respondent herein addressed a letter, dated 14.9.1983 to Sri Janaki Ramarao to make deposit of the amount. He in turn made deposits in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipts (for short ‘ FDRs’) obtained from Andhra Bank- the fourth respondent. The General Power of Attorney in favour of Janaki Ramarao was cancelled on 14.3.1987. Mukasadar died on 19.07.1990. Petitioner claims to be adopted son of Mukasadar. He got issued a notice dated 27.10.2000 through an Advocate to the first respondent with a prayer to refund the amount covered by the FDRs as well as a sum of Rs.7,000/- made as security deposit. Through reply dated 14.4.2001, the first respondent refused to accede to the request of the petitioner. The same is challenged by the petitioner. Heard Sri G.Krishnamurthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Forest for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri M.S. Suresh, the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 7, the legal representatives of Janaki Ramarao. Permits were granted by the forest department in favour of Mukasadar for felling trees and transportation of the same. He pursued the matter by executing a General Power of Attorney in favour of Janaki Ramarao. The terms of G.P.A. are not immediately before this court. The fact however, remains that the amount of Rs.1,47,175/- was deposited by the G.P.A. in his own name. Now the deposits are covered by negotiable instruments i.e. FDRs. Before the petitioner can insist on payment of amount covered by the F.D.Rs, he has to establish that the amount was arranged by his adoptive father and that in turn was deposited in the name of General Power of Attorney. These are purely questions of fact, which need to be decided only on the strength of oral and documentary evidence. If one goes by the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the amount can be paid only to that person on whose name the instrument stands. Any person pleading to the contrary has to institute proceedings and establish his claim. Therefore, the first respondent only clarified the factual and legal position through reply, dated 14.4.2001 and no exception can be taken to it. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies before an appropriate forum, if he is so advised, if they are otherwise tenable in law. This order cannot be treated as final pronouncement vis-à-vis the rights of the respondents 5 to 7 to claim the amount. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 11.12.2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ }