THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13339 of 2003 24.09.2009 Between: P.Prabhavathamma and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The Forest Range Officer, Proddatur, Kadapa .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent:AGP FOR FORESTS ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in interfering with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of the lands in Survey No.423 of Peddaputta Village, Vallur Mandal, Kadapa District, as illegal. Heard Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests. The petitioners averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that each of them is in possession of small extents of agricultural land ranging between Ac.1.00 and Acs.2.22 cents in Survey No.423 of Peddaputta Village, Vallur Mandal, Kadapa District and that they applied for DKT pattas and the revenue authorities are considering grant of such pattas. It is their further case that at the instance of Ex-President of Vana Samrakshana Samithi, the respondent has been interfering with their enjoyment of the above- mentioned lands on the ground that the same is a part of reserve forest. Therefore, they filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on proceedings, dated 01.05.1995, of the Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records, Kadapa, addressed to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vallur Mandal, Kadapa District, wherein it is inter alia stated that the land in Survey No.423 of Peddaputta Village is a river poramboke and that the record does not show that any part of the land in the said survey number was ever included in the reserve forest. It is further stated that the map produced by the Forest Department was erroneous and that there is no reserve forest at all in Peddaputta Village, which falls within Block-I of reserve forest limits. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is admitted that the land of an extent of Acs.169.07 cents comprised in Survey No.423 is classified as river poramboke. But, it is however, pleaded that the District Revenue Officer issued instructions to submit proposals for transferring the said land to the forest department for compensatory afforestation. It is stated that while the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the said land, they have encroached into Survey No.806 of Kamalapuram reserve forest and misrepresented that they are in occupation of Survey No.423 of Peddaputta Village and that pipelines were illegally laid in Survey No.806. The contents of the counter-affidavit indicate that there is some contradiction in the stand of the respondent. While in paragraph 2, it is stated that the petitioners are in occupation of the lands in Survey Nos.806 and 423 of Kamalapuram reserve forest and Peddaputta Village respectively, in paragraph 4, it is asserted that the land in Survey No.423 of Peddaputta Village is a river poramboke and the petitioners have no manner of right whatsoever to cultivate the same and the pipelines were illegally laid in Survey No.806. Notwithstanding this contradiction, the tenor of the counter - affidavit suggests that while the petitioners are cultivating the lands situated in Survey No.423 of Peddaputta Village, they have laid certain pipelines in the land in Survey No.806, which is claimed to be a reserve forest. As regards Survey No.423 of Peddaputta Village, on the own showing of the respondent, the same is not a part of reserve forest. Therefore, the respondent has no manner of right to interfere with the possession of the petitioners. Even assuming that they are in unlawful occupation of the land, it is for the revenue department to take appropriate action against the petitioners in respect of the said land, if they choose to do so. As regards the land in Survey No.806 of Kamalapuram reserve forest, if it is found that the petitioners have unauthorisedly laid pipelines over it, the respondent is entitled to take appropriate action. But, however, before doing so, he shall issue appropriate notices to the petitioners, call for their explanation, pass orders and communicate the same to them. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th SEPTEMBER, 2009. kvni