IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 14040 of 2001 Between: Kursam Nageshu S/o Late Marappa, R/o Gandupulapalli Village, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam District. 2 The Forest Range Officer, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam District. 3 The District Collector, Khammam District. 4 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 5 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary Energy, Forests, Environment, Science & Technology Dept. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in entering into the lands situated in Sy. No.695/2 and 697/2 to an extent of Acres 2.18 and 0.22 acres situated at Nagupalli Revenue Village of Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam District and removing 26 cashewnut trees of the aged about 8 years without issuing any notice and giving opportunity and cancelling the final patta certificate issued by the Respondent No.1 in proceedings No. B/60/90, dated 1-5-1990 as highly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India, and consequentially to direct that the respondents to pay the compensation for the highhanded action on the part of respondent authorities of violation of the Fundamental rights to a tune of Rs.4,50,000/- (30 years X 15,000) and to pass such other suitable orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.RAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 14040 of 2001 ORAL ORDER : (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah) The writ petition is filed seeking for a issue of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2; namely, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam district and the Forest Range Officer, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam district, in entering into the lands situated in survey Nos.695/2 and 697/2 to an extent of Acs:3-18 and Acs:0-22 guntas situated in Nagupalli Revenue village of Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam district and removing 26 cashewnut trees of aged about eight years without issuing any notice or giving any opportunity and cancelling the final patta certificate issued by the first respondent in Proceedings No. B/60/90, dated 01-5-1990 in favour of the petitioner, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300 (A) of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for the high-handed action on the part of the respondent authorities, in violating the fundamental rights, to a tune of Rs.4,50,000=00. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe {Koya} and a landless poor tribal. The Mandal Revenue Officer by his Proceedings NO.B/60/90, dated 01-5-1990 issued a final patta certificate in favour of his old mother, Smt. K.Papamma in respect of the land in an extent of Acs:3-18 guntas situated in survey No.695/2 and an extent of Ac:0-22 guntas situated in survey No.697/2 and accordingly the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the land in question. In respect of Acs:4-00 of land, he raised a cashewnut garden in the year 1991. He used to get 30 to 40 Kgs of cashewnut every year. The second respondent all of a sudden on 03-3-2001 removed the existing cashewnut trees, aged about eight years without any notice. Immediately he made a representation dated 05-3-2001 to the Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Authority, Bhadrachalam and requested to take action on the Forest Range Officer, Dammapet. The Project Director, ITDA, Bhadrachalam, in turn addressed a letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dammapet to take immediate action. Pursuant to it, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dammapeta conducted an enquiry and submitted a report in RC.No.B/3890/2000, dated 20-6-2001 stating that the land to an extent of Acs:4-00 belonged to the petitioner was handed over to the Forest Range Officer for Social Forestry and the said Officer removed 26 cashewnut trees, which were in patta lands and he quantified an amount of Rs.15,000=00 towards loss sustained on account of removing cashewnut trees of the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner has made a representation on 18-4-2001 to the District Collector against the high-handed action of respondents 1 and 2, since no amount of compensation has been paid, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dammapeta filed a counter- affidavit stating that pursuant to the letter dated 25-12-2000 of the Forest Range Officer, Dammapeta to hand over the Government land for the purpose of social forestry scheme, the land to an extent of Acs:11-20 guntas has been handed over to the Forest Range Officer on 30-12-2000. Out of which, in survey No.695/2 (Acs:3-18 guntas) and survey No.697/2 (Ac:0-22 guntas) belonged to the petitioner was already assigned in the name of her late mother by Proceedings No.B/60/90, dated 01-5-1990 and the petitioner is the son of late Smt. Kursam Papamma, the assignee , the said land was on condition that an extent of Acs:4-00 alternative land will be shown to the petitioner in due course. The Forest Range Officer, Dammapeta removed 23 cashewnut trees existing on the land and plated Eucalyptus plants in the said land. Therefore, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dammapeta sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Admittedly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land of the petitioner without following due process of law and with a view to take his land for the purpose of development of social forestry scheme is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that the Forest Department intended to implement the development of social forestry scheme and thereby to develop social forestry and pursuant to the letter dated 25-12-2000 of the Forest Range Officer, Dammapeta, a request was made to hand over an extent of Acs:11-22 guntas. For the purpose of Development of Social Forestry, the Government land was handed over to him including the land of the petitioner, which is a patta land assigned in favour of the petitioner’s late mother on condition that the petitioner will be shown alternative land. Therefore, he submitted that there are no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The mother of the petitioner is the original assignee and after her death, petitioner became the legal heir is in possession of the land. It is not settled that before taking the patta land, the Government has to follow the due process of law. As per the facts narrated above, there is no dispute that the land of the petitioner was taken possession by the Government on the ground that alternate land will be provided and even the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 20-6-2001 would indicate that Acs:4-00 of land belongs to the petitioner was handed over to the Forest Range Officer and he caused removal of 26 cashewnut trees and the loss was quantified at Rs.15,000/-. Of course, the petitioner disputed the quantification. Further there is no material on record that before taking possession of the land and verifying the crop of the petitioner, any due process of law was followed. Therefore, the high handedness action of the authorities, which it was resulted in infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution is highly desirable. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the third respondent, who is the District Collector and an authority in the capacity of Agent to the Government in dealing with the issue of tribals, is directed to conduct enquiry and enquire into the matter, and take necessary action against the persons, who are found to be responsible for acting illegally without any due regard to the rights of the petitioner in respect of his land. 8. Further the respondents are directed to pay the necessary amount as quantified by the Mandal Revenue Officer, in his Proceedings No. RC.B/3890/2000, date4d 20-6-2001 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 19-11-2008. I s L ___________________ N B : C.C. in two days B/o. I s L .. REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SRAVAN}