THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY + Writ Petition Nos.21771 of 2008 & 1980 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT % 27-02-2008 Between: Dr.M.Sharath Chandra Reddy and others …Petitioners And The Distinct Collector, Ranga Reddy, and others …Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri Srinivas Dammalapati M/s Sarosh Bastawala ^ Counsel for Respondents : G.P. for Revenue, Sri Raja Manohar & G.P. for Forest < Gist: > Head Note: Citations: AIR 2002 A.P.224 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.21771 of 2008 and 1980 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions are filed with a prayer to restrain the authorities of the Forest Department from interfering with the possession and work over different extents of land that were notified for formation of a Reserve Forest Block. Though the petitioners in the writ petitions dispute the entitlement of each other, their prayer is common. The facts that gave rise to filing of these writ petitions are as under: An extent of 383 acres of land in survey Nos.222/1 to 20 of Mysaram Village (presently Maheshwaram) is covered by forest growth. Proposals were initiated way back in the year 1968 by the Conservator of Forests, to notify the same as ‘Reserve Forest’. Substantial correspondence ensued, and ultimately, a notification, dated 04.01.1999 under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for short ‘the A.P. Act’) was published in the A.P. State Gazettee, dated 28.01.1999. This was followed by a proclamation under Section 6 of the Act published in the Gazette, dated 28.09.1999. The Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad, was appointed as the Authority, to decide the claims. Since the notified land was termed as patta, the Divisional Forest Officer, mooted the proposal for allotment of equivalent land to the owners, from the land bank of Ranga Reddy District, in lieu of compensation, after due verification. Certain developments took place, in the course of further steps, in pursuance of the notifications. The Forest Settlement Officer, addressed a letter, dated 08.01.2008 by making reference to various proceedings and stated that no decision was taken by the District Collector for allotment of alternative land, as proposed by the Divisional Forest Officer. He expressed the view that the lands are patta lands and exclusion of the same from the proposed forest block, does not attract the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, (for short ‘the F.C. Act’). He ultimately, requested the Collector to look into the matter immediately, since it is pending long time. One Mr.Abdul Rasheed filed W.P.No.7069 of 2008 before this Court by way of Public Interest Litigation, challenging the proceedings dated 08.01.2008, issued by the Forest Settlement Officer. Even while that writ petition was pending, he filed W.P.(Civil) No.69 of 2008 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and got W.P.No.7069 of 2008 dismissed, on 07.03.2008. This was followed by a similar writ petition, being W.P.No.8315 of 2008, filed by P.Ram Reddy. That was also dismissed on 18.04.2008. The entire notified land of Ac.383.00 was recorded in the name of one Mr.Sirajuddin S/o. late Waseeruddin. Sirajuddin had four sons and two daughters viz., Khaja Moinuddin, Moinuddin, Kareemuddin, Abiddiuddin, Khitaja Begum and Ghousia Begum. The 1st petitioner in W.P.No.1980 of 2009 is said to be the G.P.A. of the children of late Khitaja Begum and the second petitioner is the G.P.A. of Ghousia Begum. The petitioners in W.P.No.21771 of 2008 are said to be the purchasers from the G.P.A. of all the legal representatives of Sirajuddin. The complaint in both the writ petitions is that the authorities of the Forest Department are interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the land. There is dispute between the petitioners in the two writ petitions. Petitioners in W.P.No.1980 of 2009 dispute the legality of the alleged transfer of the land in favour of petitioners in W.P.No.21771 of 2008. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Forest and learned counsel for the contesting private parties have addressed extensive arguments on questions of fact and law. It is a matter of record that the notification under Section 4 of the A.P. Act was issued vide G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 04.01.1999 and published in the A.P. Gazette dated 23.07.1999. This was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act published on 23.09.1999. It is necessary to note that the subject matter of the entire notification was only a patta land. Therefore, the scope of enquiry by the Settlement Officer into the claims is very limited. The enquiry before the Settlement Officer assumes much of significance, when claims are received in respect of any land, which is notified as Government land. His functions under the A.P. Act are restricted to, (a) acceptance of voluntary surrender of any right, or to determine compensation for surrender of rights, as regards the land, (b) exclusion of lands from the proposed forest and (c) acquisition of patta lands under the Land Acquisition Act. In the year 2000, the Divisional Forest Officer submitted a detailed report to the effect that instead of paying compensation in the form of money, alternative land may be allotted to the eligible persons, in respect of the notified land. After discussing the implications of the A.P.Act and the F.C. Act, the Divisional Forest Officer opined that the notified land attracts the provisions of the F.C. Act and that for any change in this regard, permission of the Government of India is necessary. The Forest Settlement Officer addressed a letter, dated 08.01.2008, to the District Collector. He referred to the relevant facts and ultimately requested the District Collector to look into the matter immediately, since the matter is pending for a long time. The concluding paragraph of the letter dated 08.01.2008 reads as under: “As a notification was issued as early as on 4.1.1999, the same cannot be treated under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act to acquire the above said lands under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act as the award under Section 11 of the L.A.Act should be completed within two years. As such to acquire the said land a fresh notification is required. More over, it is an admitted fact that the said lands are patta lands of the claimants and not the Government land. The reason for change f nature of the lands in records of Forest Department is not known and the same is not explained by the Department and as such it might be recorded by mistake. Hence, it can be concluded that the said lands are patta lands and not the Forest Lands. To exclude the same from the proposed forest block, does not attract the provisions of the Conservation Forest Act as held by the Hon’ble High Court in 1999(5) ALD 586. As such it is justified to exclude the said land from the proposals of Forest Block.” This was treated as a final order in the context of formation of reserve forest. With that understanding, public interest litigations were initiated assailing the said letter. One matter was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and another, by this Court. Certain observations, made by this Court in W.P.No.8315 of 2008, are sought to be projected, as though the entire issue of formation of reserve forest has assumed finality. It is only when a notification is published under Section 15 of the Act, or when the authority, which issued notification under Section 4 of the A.P. Act, notifies its intention not to go ahead with the formation of the reserved forest, that the matter becomes final. Admittedly, no such notifications are issued. In either case, the Forest Settlement Officer does not have the last word. Further, the claim of the petitioners in W.P.No.21771 of 2008 is totally untenable. The reason is that even according to them, the lands were purchased, when the steps under the Act did not assume finality. Such transfers are hit by Section 7 of the Act, which reads as under: 7.Bar of accrual of forest rights and prohibition of clearings:- (1) 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- (a) no right shall be acquired by any person in or over the land included in the notification 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; (b) no new house shall be built or plantation formed, no fresh clearing for cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made, on such land and no trees shall be cut from such and for the purpose of trade or manufacture: Provided that nothing shall prohibit the doing of any act specified n this clause with the permission in writing of the Forest Settlement Officer; and (c) no person shall set fire or kindle or leave burning any fire in such manner as to endanger or damage such land or forest produce. (2) No patta in such land shall be granted by or on behalf of the Government. The Steps initiated for formation of a reserve forest would commence with the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act and terminate with the publication of the one under Section 15 of the Act. The enquiry made by the Forest Settlement Officer would only determine the rights of various claimants. Secondly, the letter, dated 08.01.2008 cannot be treated as final determination in the matter. Through the said letter, the Forest Settlement Officer has impressed upon the District Collector about the urgency. He did not undertake determination of any claims or disputes, under Section 10 of the Act, since there was no controversy as to the nature of land. The notification itself revealed that it is a patta land. The role of Forest Settlement Officer is therefore very limited and confined to the one of initiation of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. It is only through the award enquiry under the Land Acquisition Act, that the claims made by various individuals for compensation would be determined in accordance with the provisions of that Act. Assuming that the Government is not inclined to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, a final word must come from the concerned authority of the Government and not from the Settlement Officer, who is only an adjudicatory authority. A policy decision must emerge from the Government in this regard. The petitioners have not placed before this Court, any communication, which connotes the final decision of the Government not to go for acquisition of the land or for provision of alternative land. The state of affair that is required to be maintained, during the pendency of the proceedings, in relation to formation of reserve forest, is provided for under Section 7 of the Act itself. As long as that provision operates, the question of the petitioners claiming any independent rights over the land does not arise. The petitioners made an attempt to rest much of their claims on the observations made by this Court in W.P.No.8315 of 2008. At the cost of repetition, it needs to be said that it was filed by way of Public Interest Litigation and the only issue that arose for consideration was the validity of the letter, dated 08.01.2008. Had there been any specific adjudication in this regard, it would have certainly been binding in subsequent writ petitions. There was absolutely no scope or occasion for this Court, to take into account, the operation of Section 7 of the Act, nor was it put in issue. Further, the provisions of the F.C. Act operate even in respect of forests, which are not declared or notified as reserved. In his letter, dated 28.11.2000, the Divisional Forest Officer made the following observation: “At this juncture any change in the Title of the Sy.Nos. as well as other records will attract the provisions of the Conservation act 1980. For any changes the permission of the Government of India are to be obtained in this regard.” Though the Settlement Officer made a mention about this, it was not at all within his jurisdiction, to determine that question. It is totally in the realm of the State and Central Governments. The same is evident from the observation made by a Division Bench of this Court in Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru vs. District Judge, West Godavari [1], which reads as under: Further, the Forest Settlement Officer, the competent authority, has clearly held that the claims of the claimants have to be admitted and allowed. In other words, the Forest Settlement Officer has decided the claims of the claimants, but he did not pass the final order because he rightly thought that the land sought to be excluded from the proposed forest block attracts the provisions of the Conservation of Forest Act and, therefore, prior permission of the Government of India is necessary in terms of that Act and that is why he has requested the Government of Andhra Pradesh to secure the prior permission of the Government of India, before passing the final order. It needs to be emphasized that the forest Settlement Officer did not pass final order, only for the above noticed statutory formality and except that, in all other respects, adjudication envisages under Ss.10 and 11 of the Act is completed and decision is also taken. From this, it becomes clear that this Court held though tacitly, that the matter relating to the Forest Conservation Act has to be left to the State and Central Governments and the Forest Settlement Officer has no role to play in this regard. In view of the above discussion, the claims of the petitioners that they are in possession and enjoyment of the land in question cannot be accepted, and consequently, the injunctory relief claimed by them, cannot be granted. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed, and the petitioners have to wait till the proceedings that commenced with the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act reach finality, and the land is cleared from the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) Date:27-02-2009 Mark L.R. copies. (B/O) JSU/KO [1] AIR 2002 ANDHRA PRADESH 224