IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18638 of 2009 Between: Sannapareddy Venkata Durga Lavanya & another. … Petitioners And The District Forest Officer, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P. Sridhar Reddy Counsel for respondents 1-3: GP for Forests Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18638 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in seeking to dispossess the petitioners from Ac.14.85 cents in Sy.No.59-2, Ac.6.48 cents in Sy.No.69 and Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.72-2 belonging to petitioner No.1 and Ac.8.50 cents in Sy.No.67-2, Ac.4.36 cents in Sy.No.68-1, Ac.4.64 cents in Sy.No.68-2 and Ac.1.44 cents in Sy.No.70-2 belonging to petitioner No.2 situated i n Chapuralapalli Village, Ananta Sagaram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with their agricultural operations. I have heard Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Forests for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao for respondent No.4. The petitioners claimed to be the owners of the abovementioned properties having purchased the same under registered sale deeds in the year 1996 from Sannapareddy Ramaswami Reddy and others, who are the original owners and possessors thereof. The petitioners alleged that as they declined the request of respondent No.4 to sell their property to him, respondent No.4 started interfering with their possession. The petitioners filed O.S.No.147 of 2008 in the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Nellore for permanent injunction restraining respondent No.4, his brother by name Rajagopala Reddy and their men from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the property in question. In I.A.No.1190 of 2008, the learned Additional District Judge, Nellore, granted temporary injunction by order dated 10.11.2008, which is stated to be in force. The petitioners further alleged that in order to circumvent the said order, respondent No.4 prevailed upon respondent Nos.1 to 3 and made them to interfere with their possession of the property. Therefore, they have filed the present writ petition. In support of their plea that they are the original owners, the petitioners have filed copies of sale deed apart from pattadar pass books, title deeds and copies of adangals showing that they are in possession of the property. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, it is inter alia stated that the property in occupation of the petitioners is covered by a notification issued as far back as the year 1970 and that except the land in Sy.No.70-2, the entire rest of the land forms part of the reserved forest and therefore the petitioners have no right to be in occupation of the property. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.4. The fact that the petitioners hold the pattadar pass books, title deeds and adangals prove their possession over the property in question. The question whether the property is a private patta land or the same forms part of the reserved forest cannot be decided in this writ petition. If respondent Nos.1 to 3 feel that the property forms part of the reserved forest, they are entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967. Sub-section (3) of Section 20 mandates that if any person who is in occupation of the forest land is sought to be evicted, he shall be given a notice and opportunity of hearing before passing an order of eviction. Admittedly, no such procedure is followed by respondent Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, their interference with the petitioners’ possession cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed qua respondent Nos.1 to 3. The said respondents shall not interfere with the petitioners’ possession till an appropriate order under Section 20 is passed for their eviction after following the due procedure prescribed therein. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.24379 of 2009 and WVMP.No.489 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.07.2010. ES