THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.11945 OF 2005 Dated 22nd December, 2009 Between: Chintakayala Demudu …Petitioner And Divisional Forest Officer and three others …Resondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.V.Rajaram Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Forests The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in keeping lorry bearing No.AP16 TU 1455 along with felled mango trees under the seizure and custody of the forest authorities as illegal. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to set aside the order dated 01.05.2005, under which the lorry and felled mango trees were seized. The petitioner claims to have purchased 20 mango trees from one Viswanadhapanda, S/o Jagabandhupanda of Kothur Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District. On the ground that the trees were felled and being transported without obtaining permission as envisaged under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Rules, 2002 (for short “the Rules”), the felled trees along with the lorry were seized on 30.04.2005 and an offence report was prepared on 01.05.2005. The said seizure has been questioned in this writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Forest Range Officer, respondent No.2, it is stated that the competent authority to issue the felling permit in Form-11(a) traceable to Rule 24(5) of the Rules is the Forest Range Officer and not the Mandal Revenue Officer, who is stated to have issued the felling permit on 02.05.2005. The respondent pleaded that as the trees were felled without permission, they were seized along with the lorry. It is further stated that by following the procedure laid down under the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”), the Forest Range Officer, who is the designated Officer, compounded the offence by proceedings dated 25.05.2005. At the hearing, Sri M.V.Rajaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has obtained felling permission from the Mandal Revenue Officer, who according to him, is the designated Officer. Though he submitted that the trees were felled after obtaining permission from the Mandal Revenue Officer on 02.05.2005 and that the panchanama was drafted with ante date, it is not necessary for this Court to go into this controversial issue, because under Rule 24(4) of the Rules, permission shall be obtained in Form- 11(a) by every owner who desires to fell a tree from the designated Officer. It is specifically pleaded in the counter-affidavit that the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.47, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RD-IV) Department dated 03.03.2003, wherein it has designated different departments for implementation of various provisions of the Act. In clause 2 (v), Forest Department is designated for granting permission of tree felling. Admittedly, the petitioner has not obtained permission from the Forest Department for felling the mango trees. The permission obtained from the Mandal Revenue Officer cannot, therefore, be treated as the permission duly obtained from the designated Officer. Therefore, in my opinion, the seizure of the felled mango trees along with the lorry cannot be said to be illegal. The learned counsel further submitted that the offence report issued by the designated Officer shows that the lorry with material was seized for contravention of Rule 24(4) and (5) of the Rules and that as mango trees are exempted from transport permits to be obtained under Forest Produce Transit Rules, no transit permit needed to be obtained. Under Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 24, no tree shall be felled without the permission of the designated Officer. Even if Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 24 is not attracted as contended by the learned counsel, violation of Sub-Rule (4) is enough to justify seizure. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that imposition of huge compounding fee cannot be sustained. However, a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the prayer in the writ petition shows that the petitioner has not specifically questioned the order, whereby the offence was compounded by respondent No.2. Therefore, the said issue does not fall within the scope of this writ petition. The petitioner shall be free to question the compounding order in a separate proceedings, if he is so advised. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 22nd December, 2009 vrn