THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.9172 OF 2008 Dated 7th July, 2010 Between: Ch.Nagaraju and two others …Petitioner And The Chief Conservator of Forests and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri M.C.Acharyulu Counsel for the respondents: G.P for Forests The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare proceedings dated 13.12.2007 directing the petitioners to vacate the land in R.S.No.191/2 of Ponudugula Village, Mylavaram Mandal, Krishna District, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners have purchased certain agricultural lands under the registered sale deeds from certain private persons. According to them, the lands are classified as ryotwari patta lands and a certificate to that effect was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mylavaram, on 02.05.2006. Respondent No.2, in exercise of his power under Section 20 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for short “the Act”), issued notices in July, 2007 calling upon the petitioners to submit their explanations with documentary evidence as to why they shall not be evicted from the lands in question. In response to the said notices, the petitioners filed their explanations, wherein they have taken the stand that the lands purchased by them are ryotwari patta lands and therefore, they are not liable for eviction. By the impugned orders passed by respondent No.2, the petitioners’ objections were rejected by holding that the entire extent of Acs.1058.00 in R.S.No.191 of Ponudugula Village was declared as reserve forest vide G.O.Ms.No.83 Forest and Rural Development (For.III) Department dated 02.03.1981 and published in State Gazette notification dated 16.02.1981 and that therefore, the petitioners shall vacate the lands in their occupation. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. At the hearing, Sri M.C.Acharyulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the finding rendered by respondent No.2 that the lands in occupation of the petitioners is part of reserve forest is factually incorrect. The learned Government Pleader for Forests, however, on the basis of the notification issued and the contents of the counter-affidavit submitted that the entire land in occupation of the petitioners is part of reserve forest. In my opinion, the question raised in the writ petition is in the nature of a seriously disputed question of fact. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot decide such a disputed question of fact, which needs to be adjudicated by a competent civil Court on the basis of the evidence produced by both the parties. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to approach the competent civil Court to question the eviction orders passed by respondent No.2. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of without adjudicating the rival contentions advanced by the parties with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of civil suit. To enable them to do so, the respondents are directed not to give effect to the eviction orders impugned in this writ petition for a period of three months. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP Nos.12133 of 2008, 14056 of 2009 and WVMP No.2118 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 7th July, 2010 vrn