IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1322 of 2008 Between: Mudundi Konda Raju ..... PETITIONER AND Forest Settlement Officer, Collectorate Building, Visakhapatnam and 2 others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1322 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over an extent of Ac.48.65 cents of land covered by settlement patta No.208 in Sy.No.35 of Kommadi village, Chinnagadili Mandal,Visakhapatnam, is arbitrary, in violation of law, principles of natural justice and unconstitutional. The petitioner also sought for a direction to the respondents not to disturb his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject land. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner claims that he was given settlement patta bearing No.208 by a competent authority during the settlement operations in respect of an extent of Ac.48.65 cents of land in Sy.No.35 of the above mentioned village. He also claims that in pursuance of the said patta, his name was incorporated in MDR and also in the Settlement Fair Adangal of the village, maintained in the office of the District Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer of the village concerned. He also claims that his name was shown in 10(1) Village Account as pattadar and other revenue records. The petitioner averred that by G.O.Ms.No.411, dated 10.03.1970, the Government issued Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for short ‘the Act’) proposing to constitute the lands mentioned therein as Reserve Forest. According to the petitioner, the boundaries mentioned in the said G.O. show that the lands of the petitioner have not been included in the proposed reserve forest and that under a mistaken impression that the lands were also included, he submitted his objections on 16.07.1970 and despite the same, he did not receive any further notice or communication from the 1st respondent. It is the further case of the petitioner that a proclamation under Sec.6 of the Act was issued vide G.O.Ms.No.411, dated 15.02.1972 to which the petitioner again sent his objections on 12.04.1972 and that no notice was served on him nor any further enquiry was held by the Forest Settlement Officer as contemplated under Sec.8 of the Act. The petitioner alleged that on 23.01.2008 the officials of the 1st respondent came to the above mentioned land of the petitioner and threatened him to vacate from the same by claiming that it is the forest land and that the same is notified as a wild life sanctuary. He further averred that his efforts to explain to the officials in detail about his rights over the subject land were proved futile. With these averments, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for the relief as noted above. Heard Sri S.Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Forests. From the averments contained in the affidavit, as noted above, the case of the petitioner is that he was given a settlement patta during the settlement operations and that though the said land was not included in the proposed reserve forest, the petitioner under a mistaken impression filed his objections and that no enquiry has been held so far. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to impress upon the Court that the boundaries contained in the relevant G.Os. clearly suggest that the petitioner’s lands are not included in the proposed reserve forest. The law is well settled that before seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the State or it’s officers to discharge their statutory obligations or to carry out their statutory public duties, it is incumbent upon the person to make a prior demand. See Kamini Kumar Das Choudhary vs. State of W.B[1] and Amrit Lal Berry, K.N.Kapur vs. Collector of Central Excise Central Revenue[2]. Admittedly, the petitioner has not given any notice to the respondents or made a representation bringing to their notice that their attempt to interfere with his possession is illegal. The petitioner has not given any explanation for not following the above course before filing the present writ petition. Whether the said land is included in the proposed reserve forest or not mainly falls within the realm of factual dispute and unless the petitioner sensitized the respondents on this factual dispute, and either invite an order from them or wait for a reasonable time for response from the respondents, the petitioner, in my considered opinion, cannot rush to this Court and seek a writ of mandamus. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the respondents by making an appropriate representation within a period of two weeks from today. On such representation being made, the respondents shall communicate their stand in writing to the petitioner, within a period of three weeks therefrom. Till the disposal of such representation, both parties shall maintain status quo existing as on today. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the response of the respondents, he shall be free to avail appropriate remedies, available under law. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 29.01.2008 Dsr [1] AIR 1972 SC 2060 [2] AIR 1975 SC 538