THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.21342 of 2006 (Dated : 25-04-2011) Between: Patel Komuramma and others …Petitioners A n d The Divisional Forest Officer (South) Warangal, Warangal District and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.21342 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are seven in number initially, seeking the following relief:- “ For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the lands in Sy.No.154 and 165 of Chinnampuram village, Nellikudur Mandal, Warangal District as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the orders of this Hon’ble Court dated 24- 2-2006 made in W.P.No.18750/2004 and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the said land and pass such other or further orders as are necessary”. 2. One Ravula Ram Reddy came on record as petitioner No.8, as per order dated 18.8.2010 passed in W.P.M.P.No.25835 of 2010. 3. Pending the writ petition, the petitioners filed W.P.M.P.No.4769 of 2011 seeking amendment of the relief sought for in the writ petition and the said WPMP came be allowed on 25.02.2011. The amended relief reads as hereunder:- “ It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction to call for the records from the District Collector, Warangal to dispose of representation submitted to him in the light of the findings recorded in W.P.No.18750/2004 dated 24-02-2006 and also to notify to demarcate the land in Sy.Nos.154 and 165 of Chinna Mupparam village, Nellikuduru Mandal, Warangal District and the possession of the petitioners thereon and also to restrain the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the said land and pass such other or further orders as are necessary”. 4. The petitioners claim to be absolute owners and possessors of Ac.47-00 and Ac.35-00 respectively in Survey no.165 and 154 situated at Chinnamupparam village, Nellikuduru Mandal, Warangal District having purchased the same in the year 1963 from Pangali Venkatarami Reddy and four others. When the forest officials tried to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the said lands on the ground that the lands belong to Forest Department, the petitioners herein and some others filed Writ Petition No.6547 of 2000. The said writ petition came to be allowed by this Court, by an order dated 31.10.2001, directing the respondents not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment. The Forest Department preferred Writ Appeal being W.A.No.1953 of 2003 assailing the order dated 31.10.2001 passed in Writ Petition No.6547 of 2000. The Writ Appeal came to be disposed of by judgment dated 12.11.2003 directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to consider the representation dated 28.1.2000. The Divisional Forest Officer (South) Warangal, Warangal District-1st respondent herein issued Proceedings, vide Rc.No.1988/2000/S2, dated 13.2.2004 declaring the lands in Sy.Nos.154, 165 as part and parcel of Reserved Forest. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein along with R.Narasimha Reddy filed W.P.No.18750 of 2004. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 24.2.2006. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:- “ Having regard to the fact that no such notification under Section 15 of the A.P.Forest Act, 1967 has yet been published and having regard to the special plea raised by the petitioners that a part of the land in Sy.Nos.154 & 165 does not form part of Reserved Forest but they are patta lands as per the proceedings of the Divisional Forest Officer, Warangal, dated 17-11- 1959 and particularly having regard to the Certificate of Alienation dated 2-4-1960 issued by the Deputy Collector, Mahaboobabad, I am of the view that the 1st respondent was not justified in rejecting the representation of the petitioners merely asserting that it forms part of Reserved Forest as notified under Section 4 of the Hyderabad Forest Act, 1355 Fasle. Since the impugned order apparently is cryptic and various pleas raised by the petitioners have not been considered, it cannot be held to be a proper consideration of the representation of the petitioners in terms of the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1953 of 2003. Having regard to the tenor of the said order, the impugned order can only be termed as unilateral decision. The said order being not in conformity with the judgment in W.A.No.1953 of 2003 as well as the fundamental principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 13-2- 2004 is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners and to pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law after affording the petitioners an opportunity of personal hearing. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the lands of the petitioners in Sy.Nos.154 & 16 of Chinna Mupparam village. The petitioners are granted liberty to make a fresh representation with regard to their claim enclosing all the supporting material within four weeks from today.” 5. Pursuant to the order passed in Writ Petition No.18750 of 2004, the petitioners made a representation dated 24.3.2006 before the Divisional Forest Officer (South) Warangal, Warangal District-1st respondent The representation came to be rejected on the ground of delay of one day. R.Narasimha Reddy, one of the petitioners in W.P.No.18750 of 2004 filed Writ Petition No.11042 of 2006 assailing the order of rejection dated 3.5.2006. The said writ petition came to be disposed of directing the Divisional Forest Officer (South) Warangal, Warangal to consider the mater afresh and pass appropriate orders as per the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No.18750 of 2004 dated 24.2.2006 by fixing the date of enquiry and also by giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners herein and others. 6. Accordingly, the 1st respondent issued notice to the writ petitioners herein and others fixing the date of hearing as 31.7.2006 on which date the writ petitioners herein along with R.Narasimha Reddy made a representation. The 1st respondent posted the matter for hearing on 11.8.2006. According to the petitioners, the 1st respondent without passing final orders on the representation dated 31.7.2006 resorted to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the lands in dispute by apprehending the labourers engaged by them. For better understanding of the grievance of the writ petitioners, I deem it appropriate to refer paras 7 and 8 of the affidavit, which read as hereunder:- “7. Be that as it may, even before an order was passed by the 1st respondent in terms of the orders of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.18750/2004 dated 14-02-2006 coupled with the order dated 15-06-2006 in W.P.No.11042/2006, the Forest officials are interfering with our peaceful possession and enjoyment over the said lands by apprehending the cultivators or their labourers and servants. On 6th October, 2006, the forest officials taken away 6th petitioner herein and detained him under their custody through out the night and released him only after obtained his signatures on the blank papers forcibly. Thereafter, on 7-10-2006, when we engaged Tractors for ploughing the land, the forest officials forcibly taken away the said tractors and detained the same till yesterday by threatening the owners of the vehicles not to accept the petitioners’ request for hire or else they will be implicated in a case. Now, no Tractor owner is coming forward to work under us. That apart, the Forest officials quite frequently visiting our houses and threatening the inmates to reveal our whereabouts for the purpose of our arrest. The said action on the part of the forest officials is highly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the specific directions of this Hon’ble Court dated 24-02-2006 and 15-06-2006 made in W.P.Nos.18750/2004 and 11042/2006. 8. It is submitted that even though we are also given notice of hearing and opportunity of hearing pursuant to the order of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.18750/2004 and we were allowed to face the enquiry on 11-08-2006, without passing any orders our possession over the said lands are being interfered with by the respondents, however, the possession of R.Narasimha Reddy was not disturbed as he is a party to the writ petition- W.P.No.11042/2006. The said action of the respondents is not only contrary to the specific directions of this Hon’ble Court dated 24-02-2006 in W.P.No.18750/2006 but also discriminatory, more so, we are given a common representations which is pending with the 1st respondent without passing any orders as on today. Hence, we are constrained to file this Writ Petition, seeking suitable directions in this regard.” 7. Rule nisi came to be issued on 13.10.2006. An interim direction also came to be issued on the even date directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the lands in question, provided no final orders have been passed in terms of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.18750 of 2004, vide W.P.M.P.No.27060 of 2006. 8. Respondents 1, 3 and 4 filed counter affidavits. Consequent on amendment of prayer in the writ petition, respondents 1 and 2 filed additional counter affidavits. B.Nagaraju, Forest Range Officer, Mahabubabad, has sworn to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 3. The counter affidavit, in brief, is:- (a) Filing of earlier writ petitions by R.Narasimha Reddy and others is not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the Divisional Forest Officer (South), Warnagal District issued notices to the petitioners to attend personal hearing on 13.11.2006 and indeed, the petitioners attended personal hearing on 13.11.2006 but in view of budget meeting at Conservator of Forests office, the enquiry came to be postponed to 20.11.2006. No final orders have been passed pursuant to the direction given by this Court in W.P.No.18750 of 2004 and W.P.No.11042 of 2006. The possession of the petitioners over the lands in dispute is denied. They asserted that the lands claimed by the petitioner are under the possession and enjoyment of the Forest Department and therefore, the question of Forest officials interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners does not arise. The allegation that the forest officials apprehended and detained the six petitioners on 6.10.2006 has been denied. R.Narsimha Reddy, Sanjeeva Reddy and P.Krishna Reddy and another person namely Palvai Janardhan Reddy engaged the Tractor bearing No.AP36- W-1780 for ploughing the area illegally on 10.10.2006 in Reserved Compartment No.1165 of Block Dhansari notified under Section 4 of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act 1355 Fasli (Corresponding to Sec 4 of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act 1967) even though it was not the ploughing season. The area which was sought to be ploughed by the said persons is in the disputed lands. The Forest Beat Officer, Alair, seized the said Tractor involved in commission of Forest offence and booked case against the above-referred persons, vide PR No.1483/60, dated 10.10.2006 under the cover of panchanama. The seized property has been produced before the Authorized Officer under Section 44 of A.P.Forest Act, 1967. After due enquiry, the Authorized Officer has confiscated the tractor vide his proceedings Rc.No.37/M/06-07, dt.25-11-2006. The owner of the tractor B.Ashok aggrieved by the said orders preferred an appeal against the order of the Authorized Officer , vide C.M.A.No.61 of 2006 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Warangal and the said C.M.A is pending. As per the orders passed in W.P.No.11042 of 2006, dated 15.6.2006, the enquiry is being conducted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Warangal. R.Narasimha Reddy is not in possession of the lands in dispute. The entire area of Sy.Nos.154 and 165 of Mupparam village is under the control and possession of Forest Department since the notification i.e., 1357 Faslli and the said area is in the middle of the forest. Once the area is notified under Forest Act, no person can acquire new rights and that no forest shall be used for non- forest purpose. Any use of forest area for non-forest purpose amounts to violation of Section 2 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980. (b) N.Sridhar has sworn to the additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the proceedings issued by the Deputy Collector, Mahabubabad on 02-4-1960 granting permission for alienation of the lands is contrary to the notification issued on 15th Behman 1357 Fasli, wherein Dhansari Forest Block was notified under Section (4) of the Forest Act (Act 2 of 1355 Faslli). On verification of the entire file, there is no observation made by the then Deputy Collector, Mahabubabad regarding notification of the above lands under the Forest Act 1946 and dis-reservation of forest lans etc. The Deputy Collector, Mahabubabad is not competent authority to issue alienation permission. Therefore, the order issued by the Deputy Collector, Mahabubabad, is without jurisdiction. The Government have ordered vide G.O.Ms.No.2204 F & A Dept., dated 27.11.1970 to dis-reserve the area 1300.00 from the F.B.Dhanasari (Compt. No.1173 to 1175) and hand over to the Revenue Department. But the survey numbers which are dis-reserved are not mentioned in the above G.O. The land bearing Sy.Nos.154 & 165 do not find place in the said G.O. The District Collector, Warangal called for report from the Conservator of Forests, Warangal circle, Warangal vide letter No.B6/4812/94, dated 1.8.1994. In response, the Conservator of Forests, Warangal Circle, Warangal has furnished a report to the Collector, Warangal vide letter Lr.No.19436/69/D1, dated 21.9.194 stating that no area has been handed over to the Revenue Department in the said block. The block comprising Sy.Nos.154 and 165 is under process for settlement under Section 15 of A.P.Forest Act, 1967. It is open to the writ petitioners to claim compensation through their pattedars as the forest block is under process for settlement. (c ) R.Ganesh, Forest Range Officer, Mahabubabad has sworn to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent. The sum and substance of the counter affidavit is:- As per Section 10 of Hyderabad Forest Act 1355 Fasli any claim shall be presented before the Forest Settlement Officer. Forest Settlement Officer is only the authority to admit or to reject the claim thereon. Once the area is notified under Section 4 of Hyderabad Forest Act 1355 Fasli, the Chief Conservator of Forests has no authority to admit the claim of the pattedar and release the patta land included in Reserve Forest. Only the Forest Settlement Officer is competent authority for release of the lands in reserve forest. The letter of the Chief Conservator of Forests in Rc.No.45456/Lac/s8, dated 29.10.1959 and the letter of the Divisional Forest Officer in Rc.No.14/11/1352/H10, dated 13-11- 1959 pressed into service by the writ petitioners are fake. Sy.Nos.154 and 165 is part and parcel of Reserve forest Compartment Nos.1163 and 1164 of Beat Alair Blcok Dhanasari notified under Section 4 of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act 1355 Fasli (corresponding to Section 4 of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967). Since the date of notification, the said area is under the control and possession of Forest Department. The said area is inspected by the Forest Officials along with vana Samrakshana Samithi members and elders on 7.2.2205 and 1.6.2006and conducted panchanama, which reveals that the lands in question, i.e., land in Sy.Nos.154 and 165 of Mupparam village are under the possession and control of Forest Department and the area covered under the said survey numbers is allotted to Vana Samrakshana Samithi Mathru Thanda for the development and regeneration of natural forest and its protection. (d). M.A.Kareem, Tahsildar, Nellikudur Mandal, Warangal District has sworn to the counter affidavit filed on behalf respondent No.4. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the matter pertains to Forest Department and this respondent is not concerned with the same. As per orders dated 24.2.2006 passed in Writ Petition No.18750 of 2004, the Forest Department has to consider and pass appropriate orders and the matter is still pending with the Forest Department. 9. The writ petitioners have also filed a reply affidavit. 10. Respondents 1 and 3 moved W.V.M.P.No.13 of 2007 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 13.10.2006 passed in W.P.M.P.No.27060 of 2006. There being no representation on behalf of the vacate stay petitioners; the interim order passed in W.P.M.P.No.27060 of 2006 came to be made absolute on 27.7.2007. Thereupon, respondents 1 and 3 moved W.P.M.P.No.13434 of 2008 for condonation of delay of 240 days in filing an application for restoration of W.V.M.P.No.13 of 2007. The said application ended in dismissal on 1.6.2009. Respondents 1 to 4 filed Writ Appeal No.1264 of 209 assailing the order dated 1.6.2009passed in W.P.M.P.No.13434 of 2008. the Writ Appeal ended in dismissal giving liberty to the respondents to move an application for early hearing of the writ petition. I deem it appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the order passed in W.A.No1264 of 2009:- “ Having considered the facts referred to above, we are of the view that there was total lack of diligence on the part of the office of the Government Pleader. We are unable to countenance the contension that on all three occasions posting of the vacate stay application could not be noticed. It is not possible for us to accept the plea of the learned Government Pleader that the Government Pleader’s office Clerk should receive the whole blame. Apart from the Government Pleader dealing with the subject concerned, he is given two Assistant Government Pleaders. No explanation has been forthcoming as to why neither the Government Pleader nor the two Assistant Government Pleaders did not bestow their attention to the case and monitor its posting. As the case was posted on as many as three occasions and on all the three occasions there was no representation, we have no hesitation to conclude that there was negligence on the part of the Government Pleader and the Assistant Government Pleaders assisting him apart from Government Pleader’s Officer Clerk. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Appeal, W.A.M.P.No.2640 of 2009, filed by the appellants for interim relief, is dismissed as infructuous. As the learned Government Pleader for Forest submitted that the respondents are in occupation of vast extent of forest land and as counter affidavit was also filed, liberty is given to the learned Government Pleader to move an application before the learned Single Judge for early hearing of the Writ Petition.” In view of the above observation of the Division Bench, this writ petition has been taken up for final disposal. 11. Heard Sri N.Subba Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 2 and 4. 12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Survey Nos.154 and 165 cannot be treated as Forest land since no notification under Section 6 of the A.P.Forest Act has been issued. A further submission has been made that the Deputy Collector, Mahabubabad permitted Pingle Venkat Ram Reddy and N.V.Ramkrishna Reddy to alienate the lands comprised in Sy.Nos.119, 150, 154, 165, 166 and 168 of Chinna Mupparam village of Mahabubabad under Section 47 and 48 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and in which case, it is impermissible for the authorities to contend that the lands comprising Survey Nos.154 and 165 are forest lands. He would also contend that even Divisional Forest Officer, Warangal issued instructions to the Range Officer, Mahabubabad on 17.11.1959 to demarcate the lands comprising Sy.Nos.149, 150, 154, 165, 168 and handover the same along with standing timber to the pattedar. The said letter came to be issued on the representation of P.V.Reddy of Mupparam. Learned counsel also refers letter dated 30.9.2009 issued by the Tahasildar, Nellikudur giving certain clarifications to the Divisional Forest Officer, Mahabubabad. The points clarified by the Tahasildar in letter dated 30.9.2009 are:- (1) Sy.Nos.154 & 165 of Chinna Mupparam village of Nellikudur Mandal are Pucca Patta lands standing in the name of Pingili Venkat Rama Reddy and Naini Venkat Ranga Rao. (2) In the year 15th Bahan 1357 Fasli after settlement of Forest the Patta lands in S.No.154 and 165 of Chinna Mupparam village were proposed for inclusion and notified. (3) The claims of Pattedars U/s 6 of A.P.Forest Act were not settled and the Forest Department returned back the patta lands to the Pattedars (C.C.F orders Xerox copy enclosed). Accordingly, the Forest Department handed over the patta lands to the Pattedars). Subsequently, the Pattadars sold away their lands to several Ryots and they are in possession. (4) Ignoring all the facts why the Forest Officials at Division Level are interfering into the peaceful possession of Sri Vem Sanjeeva Reddy and others is not deserves, as they have got favourable orders from Honourable High Court filing various Writ Petitions”. 13. Learned senior counsel would also contend that the plea of the respondents that the lands claimed by the petitioners forms part of reserved forest land has been negatived by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.18750 of 2004 in which case, it is impermissible for the respondents to plead that the lands claimed by the petitioners form part of reserved forests. Learned senior counsel took me to the observations made by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18750 of 2004. Relevant portion of the order on which much emphasis has been laid by the learned senior counsel has already been extracted supra. A further submission has been made that the Government Pleader had made a statement before the Division Bench that the writ petitioners herein are in occupation of the vast extent of forest land and in which case it is impermissible for any of the respondents to contend that lands in Sy.Nos.154 and 165 are not in occupation of the petitioners herein. In elaborating his arguments, learned counsel took me to the letter dated 17.11.1959 emanating from the Divisional Forest Officer, Warangal and also the certificate for alienation of the land issued by the office of the Deputy Collector, Mahabubababd. According to the learned senior counsel, the certificate of alienation issued by the Deputy Collector, Mahabubabad holds good even if he lacks jurisdiction so long as the higher authority set aside the proceedings by taking recourse to the provisions of Hyderabad Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 or any other At in force. As long as the certificate is not set aside, it holds good and any alienation made pursuant to the said certificate cannot be said to be invalid. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. M.K.Kunhkannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, Naduvil[1] and P.K.Palanisamy v. N.Arumugham[2]. 14. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners have not filed any document before the Divisional Forest Officer pursuant to the notice issued on them and in which case, it cannot be said that the petitioners substantiated their claim before the 1st respondent. Learned Government Pleader refers panchanamas dated 7.2.2005 and 1.6.2005 to buttress his submission that no signs of cultivation being carried out in the lands in question. Various other contentions have been advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 15. In response, learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners are in possession of the lands claimed by them even according to the statement of the Government Pleader for Forests made before the Division Bench and therefore, the possession of the petitioners is required to be protected and necessary direction is required to be given to the concerned police to extend police aid for their peaceful possession and