THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.20674 OF 2005 Dated 27th November, 2009 Between: M.Koteswar Rao …Petitioner And The Plantation Manager and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None appeared Counsel for respondent No.1 : None appeared Counsel for respondent No.2 : AGP for Forests The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notice dated 24.07.2005 issued by respondent No.1. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have perused the record. The petitioner claims to be in possession of Acs.4.00 situated at Mutyalammapeta Village near Sarapaka, Burgumpahad Mandal, Khammam District for ten years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. By the impugned notice, respondent No.1 informed the petitioner that he has illegally cultivated the protected forest Krishna Sagar Block Compartment No. Iramendi E.A.91 area, which was stated to constitute an offence under Section 20 (1) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for short “the Act”). The petitioner was, therefore, called upon in the said notice to refrain from carrying on further cultivation and handover possession of the land within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the petitioner will be held liable for the commission of offence under the Act. In this writ petition, the petitioner averred that while in all nine persons have developed the land and had been cultivating the same, respondent No.1 has singled out the petitioner and chosen to give the impugned notice. Having carefully considered the averments contained in the affidavit, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the notice issued by respondent No.1 in exercise of the statutory powers. It is not in dispute that the property in occupation of the petitioner does not belong to him. The petitioner has not denied the claim of respondent No.1 that the said land constitutes protected forest. While it is not known why respondent No.1 has not issued similar notices to the other persons, who are also in occupation of forest lands, that by itself would not clothe the petitioner with any right to prevent respondent No.1 from taking appropriate action against him for being in occupation of the protected forest land. The petitioner, therefore, failed to make out any ground for interference by this Court with the impugned notice. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Respondent No.1 is, however, directed to initiate similar action against other persons, in accordance with law if they are found to be in unauthorised possession of protected/reserve forest. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 27th November, 2009 vrn​