IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9422 of 2010 Between: J. Bhawarlal Jaih & others. ..... Petitioners AND The Commissioner of Survey Settlements & Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Ms. K. Pallavi Counsel for respondents 1-4: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9422 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners sought for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not conducting joint survey of Sy.No.260 in general and Sy.Nos.260/15, 260/16 and 260/18 in particular of Mysigandi Village, Amangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, as illegal and arbitrary. In the manner in which the writ petition is proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail. It would suffice to note that there is a serious dispute as to whether Sy.Nos.260/15 and 260/16 corresponding to new Sy.Nos.260/86 and 260/87 in which the petitioners’ crushing unit and quarry areas are located fall inside the notified boundary of Kadthal reserved forest area or not. When criminal proceedings were initiated against the lessee of petitioner No.4 and order of penalty was imposed for the alleged encroachment of the forest area, the aggrieved person has filed an appeal in the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Mahabubnagar. The said Court is stated to have set aside the said order and remanded the case to the primary authority with a direction to conduct joint survey and demarcate the boundaries of the reserved forest. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said order is not being carried out. In my opinion, the person, who is a party to the criminal proceedings, has to approach the IV Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Mahabubnagar, for appropriate directions for implementation of his order. Instead of following the said course, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court rather unnecessarily. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to seek enforcement of the abovementioned order of the criminal Court by filing appropriate application before it. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.12158 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.09.2010 ES