The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.304 of 2009 Dated 14th July, 2010 Between: Shyamala Sunder Reddy and another. …Petitioners And The Divisional Forest Officer, Palwancha, Khammam District and 3 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Mr.P.V.Ramana Counsel for the respondents: None appeared The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in interfering with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of lands admeasuring Ac.5-00 cents and Ac.3-32 cents in Survey No.190/117/1 of Nellipaka Revenue Village, Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam District, without following the due process of law, as illegal. I have heard Sri P.V.Ramana, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record. The petitioners claim to be the owners and pattadars of the above-mentioned lands holding title deeds issued under the provisions of the A.P.Record of Rights Act during the years 1995-96. The petitioners alleged that in the guise of notification issued under Section 15 of the A.P.Forest Act, 1967 (for short ‘the Act’), the respondents have been unduly interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the said property by claiming that the same forms part of reserve forest. The petitioners averred that a common boundary separates their patta lands and the reserve forest pertaining to Station Nos.17 to 22 of Nellipaka and Krishnasagar. They placed reliance on a survey sketch said to have been prepared after survey was conducted by the forest officials on 18-06-1996. The petitioners further averred that even assuming that the lands held by them fall within the reserve forest area, the respondents cannot interfere with their possession without following the procedure prescribed under Section 20 of the Act. In the counter-affidavit, filed by respondent No.1- Divisional Forest Officer, Paloncha, Khammam District, it is inter alia stated that the survey referred to by the petitioner was conducted by forest officials to fix the patta boundary pertaining to the petitioners’ lands only to assess the estimated yield of tree growth, while considering the petitioners’ request for converting the tree growth into charcoal, and that no survey was conducted to demarcate the reserve forest boundary. It is further stated that the map prepared by the forest officials for the said purpose is not valid under the Act and that a copy of the location sketch for the schedule land certified by the Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records, was obtained from old patta filed by the petitioner which clearly reveals the fact that the felling permission was not accorded for the schedule land. It was further averred that the respondents have now requested the survey and revenue officials to fix the boundary of the patta land with reference to survey and land records. Respondent No.1 has quoted the opinion of the District Collector, Khammam, to the effect that, ‘though the land is outside the reserve forest boundary, if permission is granted to fell the trees over Ac.19-30 cents, they may encroach into the forest by cutting the forest’. It is further stated that the work of boundary demarcation of the reserve forest is taken up through chain and compass to confirm the actual legal status of the disputed land and that the same is required to be confirmed with reference to the bearings and distances notified in the Gazette and that after demarcation following the said procedure, the action will be initiated as per the Act, if the land falls in the reserve forest area. It is further stated that the forest officials have never interfered with the possession of the petitioners and that they have informed the petitioners to proceed with the further development works only after verification of the reserve forest boundary. From the stand taken by respondent No.1 in the counter-affidavit as noted above, it is quite evident that the respondents have not yet completed the survey and demarcation of boundary work in order to prevent the petitioners from enjoying the property covered by the private pattas. The respondents have, however, mentioned that they have not been interfering with the petitioners’ possession and that they have only been objecting to the petitioners undertaking the development works before fixing the reserve forest boundary. Having regard to these averments contained in the counter-affidavit, the Writ Petition is disposed of without adjudicating on the specific contention of the petitioners that their land does not fall within the reserve forest area and with the direction to the respondents to complete the survey and demarcation work as proposed by them after giving notice to the petitioners. However, it is made clear that if it is found after survey that the lands held by the petitioners fall within the reserve forest area, the respondents are entitled to initiate appropriate action under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 12-01-2009, is vacated and WPMP.Nos.324 & 31915 of 2009 and WVMP.No.996 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 14th July, 2010 Note: Furnish CC in a week. (B/o) lur