THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 20544 OF 2009 Dated 20th July, 2010 Between: Panda Rama Rao …Petitioner And The Forest Range Officer and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: G.P for Forests The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing teak logs numbering 34 in favour of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to be the owner and pattadar of land admeasuring Ac.4.37 cents in Survey No.28/1 of Lagarai Village, Rajavommangi Mandal, East Godavari District. According to the petitioner, he holds Patta No.117 in respect of the said land. The daughter of the petitioner made a complaint to the Forest Range Officer-respondent No.1 stating that one Pusam Pottidora has cut and removed 10 teak plants from the abovementioned land without the permission of the petitioner. On receipt of the said complaint, respondent No.1 has seized the teak logs and preserved at Rajavommangi forest centre. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation on 26.07.2009 to respondent No.1 for release of the said teak logs. As the teak logs are not being released, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Forests, on instructions, submitted that there are rival claims over the teak logs; that Smt Pusam Leelavathi, W/o Pusam Pottidora also made a representation on 10.08.2009 claiming release of teak logs in her favour and that as the dispute persists between the petitioner on the one side and Smt Pusam Leelavathi on the other, respondent No.1 has requested the Tahsildar, Rajavommangi to give his opinion on the ownership of the property. Section 39(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 reads as under: “39. Procedure on the presentation of claim to such timber:- (1)………… (2) Where such timber is claimed by more than one person, the Divisional Forest Officer may either deliver the same to any such person whom he finds to be entitled thereto after recording the reasons therefor, or may refer the claimants to the Court, and retain the timber pending the receipt of an order from such Court for its disposal.” In my opinion, in view of the rival claims made by the petitioner and Smt Pusam Leelavathi, the respondents shall follow the procedure laid down in the above reproduced provision. Accordingly, respondent No.1 is directed to take a decision either by releasing the teak logs in favour of one of the parties whom he finds entitled to receive them or refer the matter to the jurisdictional Court for passing appropriate orders, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.26785 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 20th July, 2010 vrn