HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
Writ Petition No.25514 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioner firm seeks a mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 to 4 in including the land of Ac.36.66 cents out of Ac.37.83 cents in Sy.No.726 of Mamillapalli Village Fields, Chintakommadinne Mandal, YSR District in the prohibitory list under Section 22A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 showing it as a Forest land and consequential action of 8th respondent in refusing to register and release the Sale Deeds dated 20.07.2020 vide letter No.NIL/PROH/DOT dated 31.08.2021 as arbitrary, illegal and consequentially direct the respondents to delete the aforesaid property from the prohibitory list and release the Sale Deeds dated 20.07.2020.
2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:
(a) The subject land was originally classified as patta land of (1) Machineni Subbarayudu (2) Yerra Kondam Naidu (3) Chinna Kondam Naidu (4) Papaiah Pala Kondam Naidu and (5) Machineni Nagamma in the Survey and Settlement Register prepared in the year 1874 and published on 28.02.1874. While conducting the Re-survey and Resettlement and also preparing the Re-survey and Resettlement Register in the year 1910, the said Sy.No.716/14 was changed to Sy.No.726 in the Pattadar column and in the remarks column it was mentioned by mistake as forest land. Knowing the same, the original owners submitted an application to the then District Collector, Cuddapah District, who in turn having verified the revenue 2 records passed an order in Ref.No.4-1169/1017 dated 09.04.1916 and ordered for deletion of the inadvertent entry made in the Re-survey and Resettlement Register against the subject land and the said proceedings were incorporated in the Record of Holdings prepared in or about the year 1938.
(b) The original owners thus enjoyed the land during their lifetime and after that the subject land was mutated in favour of (1) Alamuri Sanjeevarayudu (2) Alamuri Kondama Naidu (3) Alamuri Subbaiah Naidu (4) Vemula Pedda Narayana (5) Vemula Chinna Narayana (6) Koduru Chenchaiah and (7) Machineni Lakshmi Devi. The Pattadar Passbooks, Adangals and Cist receipts were also issued in their favour. After the demise of the above seven persons, the subject land devolved on their legal heirs and revenue records were mutated in their favour.
(c) While so, the legal heirs of Alamuri Sanjeevarayudu and six others have sold the subject land in favour of the petitioner vide Sale Deeds dated 20.07.2020 and both parties presented the Sale Deeds for registration before 8th respondent / Sub-Registrar, Kadapa (Rural). In turn, the 8th respondent assigned the document pending registration number and issued a letter in Lr.NIL/POH/DOT dated 31.08.2021 stating that as per the office records, Sy.No.726 of Mamillapalli Village, Chinthamommadinne Mandal was included in the prohibitory list of properties under Section 22A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 as the said land was recorded as forest land. The petitioner informed that the wrong entry crept in the Registers during the Re- survey and Re-settlement operations which was directed to be corrected and indeed corrected by the orders of the then District Collector and therefore, the authorities were not justified to record the subject land as a forest land. 3 However, the 8th respondent has not taken any action. The petitioner obtained information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the effect that the subject land was not notified as a forest land as per Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 which implies that the subject land is not a forest land.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. Counter filed by the Revenue Department through 4th respondent more or less supports the petitioner's case. It is pleaded that as per the Re- survey and Re-settlement Register (RSR) of Mamillapalli Revenue village, which was prepared in the year 1910, the Sy.No.726 to an extent of Ac.39.80 cents was classified as "Government Poramboke" and in column 16 i.e., remarks column it is noted as "forest". However, as per the extracts of the old Survey & Settlement Register of Mamillapalli Revenue village, which was prepared prior to the Re-survey and Re-settlement Register i.e., in the year 1874, the old Survey No.716/14 (subsequently changed as Sy.No.726 in the Re-Settlement Register) to an extent of Ac.37.83 cents was noted in the names of Machineni Subbarayudu and three others and it was shown as patta land. However, in the Re-survey and Re-settlement operations held in 1910, the subject land, for the reasons not known, shown as "Government Poramboke" along with another extent of Ac.1.97 cents. Old survey number was renumbered as Sy.No.726.
(a) It is further pleaded that on the complaint of the ryots, the then District Collector revised the orders of the Special Settlement Officer and thereby the present Sy.No.726 was treated as patta land in the District Collector's Ref.A-1169-1916 dated 09.04.1916. The pattadar names are 4 furnished viz., (1) Machineni Subbaiah (Ac.2.50 cents) (2) Vemuri Ramaiah (Ac.8.25 cents) (3) Vemuri Papaiah (Ac.4.00 cents) (4) Alamuri Papaiah Naidu (Ac.6.50 cents) (5) Alamuri Sanjeeva Naidu (Ac.9.25 cents) (6) Alamuri Pedda Pala Kondama Naidu (Ac. 5.25 cents) (7) Miryala Venkataiah (Ac.2.10 cents) (8) Koduru Rangaiah (Ac. 1.95 cents). The old survey Nos.716, 726/14 and 726 as per the RSR of Mamillapalli village are one and the same. As per the aforesaid order, the balance extent of Ac.1.97 cents was also treated as patta land of the aforesaid owners.
(b) It is further pleaded that till the digitalization of the revenue records, subject land was entered in the records and treated as private lands and manual pattadar passbooks were also issued in favour of the private parties. The digitalization of the revenue records took place in the year 2011. During such digitalization, the rectification taken place in 1916, which was recorded in the next page of original entry in the RSR was not seen by either side and the original entry as per the RSR was only considered and noted. Therefore, subsequent to digitalization in the year 2011, the entries pertaining to the subject land were reflected as forest land. The respondents thus prayed to pass orders.
4. The Forest Department filed counter through 6th respondent and opposed the writ petition contending thus:
(a) Basing on the representation made by the petitioner herein, the District Collector, YSR Kadapa District vide Ref.No.REV- SWLA022A/40/2020-Sa(SWLA) dated 23.09.2020 has instructed the District Forest Officer, Kadapa to verify the revenue records in consultation 5 with the Tahsildar, C.K. Dinne to confirm whether the subject land is forest land or not. Basing on the request of the District Collector, the 6th respondent issued instructions to the Forest Range Officer, Kadapa vide Rc.No.2031/2020/A8 dated 26.09.2020 to verify the status of the subject land as per Forest and Revenue records and submit report after conducting joint inspection with the Tahsildar, C.K.Dinne. Accordingly, the Forest Range Officer, Kadapa submitted a report vide Rc.No.Report/Sy.No.726/Mamillapalli, dated 02.11.2020 and 11.12.2020 stating that he along with staff attended the joint inspection on 08.10.2020 along with Tahsildar, C.K.Dinne and he came to know that at present the subject land is covered by small thorny bushes which grew naturally and the subject land is not a barren land but has a scrub forest which is a natural characteristic of the area with the growth of Prosophis Julifora and also reported that the subject land was classified as "Forest Hill" in the revenue records i.e., RSR and the same was mentioned as "Adavi Poramboke" as per the gazette notification published under the Madras Forest Act (V of 1882) dated 01.03.1902. It was found that the subject land falls adjacent to the Palakonda Extension Block-A Reserve Forest (declared under Section 16 of the Madras Forest Act). It is further contended that the classification of the land as "forest" in revenue records cannot be changed as it amounts to violation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 12.12.1996 in W.P.No.202/1995 wherein it was held that the "Forest Land" occurring in Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 will not include "Forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also area recorded as forest in the Government record 6 irrespective of its ownership. These facts were reported by the Sub- Divisional Forest Officer, Kadapa to the District Forest Officer, Kadapa in her report vide R.cNo.Sy.No.726/KDP Range/2020 dated 03.11.2020 and 14.12.2020. These facts in turn were reported by the 6th respondent to the District Collector, Kadapa vide Rc.No.2031/2020/A8 dated 07.11.2020 and 16.12.2020. Thereafter, the District Collector, Kadapa vide Rc.No.REV- SWLA022A/40/2020-SA(SWLA) dated 27.01.2021 has requested the District Forest Officer, Kadapa and the Sub-Collector, Kadapa to jointly inspect the subject land in Sy.No.726 and verify all the connected records and submit detailed joint inspection report for taking further action on the application filed by Mr. A.Srinivasulu Naidu and four others through Mee- seva application. Accordingly, a joint inspection was conducted on 02.03.2021 which was attended by the District Forest Officer, Kadapa and the Sub-Collector, Kadapa and during that inspection it was found that the subject land in Sy.No.726 in an extent of Ac.39.80 cents was falling outside the Reserve Forest adjoining and in close proximity to reserve forest line of Palakonda R.F. in compartment No.549 of Mamillapalli beat of Kadapa Range. It was stated in the joint inspection report that Sy.No.726 was classified as "Forest Hill" as per the RSR of revenue records and as per the Adangal, the classification of Sy.No.726 was shown as "Forest Poramboku" and therefore, the subject land attracts the definition of "deemed forest" as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in W.P.No.202/1995. It is further contended that the Forest Department is not aware of the order said to be passed by the District Collector changing the classification and the said order was never communicated to the Forest Department. The subject land 7 continues to be "Forest Hill" as per the RSR. It is further submitted that the District Collector, Kadapa neither consulted the Forrest Department nor issued any notice before passing the order dated 09.04.1916. It is further contended that the contention of the petitioner that the land which is classified as Reserve Forest should be notified by means of a Gazette notification as per Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 will be applicable only when the Revenue Department hands over the land to the Forest Department, but in the instant case, the subject land was not yet handed over to the Forest Department by the Revenue Department and hence, the question of gazette notification under Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act does not arise, since the RSR record shows the subject land a "Forest land" and hence, it will attract the definition "deemed forest". Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
5. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondents 1 to 4, and learned Government Pleader for Forests representing the respondents 5 to 8.
6. As can be seen from the pleadings and arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner claims that the subject land is a private patta land which was originally belonged to Machineni Subbarayudu and others and during Re-survey and Re-settlement operations held in the year 1910, by mistake the classification of the subject land was recorded as Forest land, but, however, on the application made by the successors of the original owners, the then District Collector vide his proceedings in Ref.No.4- 8 1169/1017 dated 09.04.1916 directed that the error should be rectified and the subject land to an extent of Ac.39.80 cents should be recorded in the name of pattadars and the same was implemented and since 1916 the subject land was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the successors of the original owners. Pattadar Passbooks were also issued in their names. When the petitioner proposed to purchase the subject land from the owners and when they presented the Sale Deeds, the 8th respondent refused to register Sale Deeds on the ground that the subject land was recorded as forest land in the prohibited list of properties under Section 22A(1)(a) of the Registration Act. The petitioner's vendors seem to have filed application before the District Collector for deletion of the subject property from the prohibited list, but it appears no action has been taken. The Revenue Department, of course, in its counter supported the case of the petitioner. However, the Forest Department basing on the entries made in the Re-survey and Re- settlement Register claims that the subject land shall be deemed to be all a forest land.
(a) The counter of 6th respondent shows that on the instructions of the District Collector, a joint inspection was conducted in the presence of the District Forest Officer and the Sub-Collector, Kadapa, wherein it was found subject land was falling outside the Reserve Forest but it was lying in close proximity to reserve forest line of Palakonda R.F. in compartment No.549 of Mamillapalli beat of Kadapa Range. Basing on the topography of the land, the Forest Department claims it as a forest land. It is admitted in the counter that so far the land was not officially handed over by the Revenue 9 Department to the Forest Department and hence, gazette notification under Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 was not done.
(b) The above are the respective contentions of either side. It is to be noted that in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, a full Bench of the High Court of A.P. has given certain guidelines narrating the remedy available to a party whose property is included in the list of properties under Section 22A(1)(a) of the Registration Act. It reads thus:
"(ix) It is open to the parties to a document, if the relevant property/land finds place in the list of properties covered by clauses (a) to
(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A, to apply for its deletion from the list or modification thereof, to the concerned authorities as provided for in the guidelines. The concerned authorities are obliged to consider the request in proper perspective and pass appropriate order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the application and make its copy available to the concerned party."
(c) Therefore, the aggrieved party can apply for deletion of the concerned party from the prohibited list to the concerned authorities. In that view, this Court considers it apposite to direct the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent with a fresh application for seeking redressal in the matter.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner and their vendors to file a fresh application within three (3) weeks before 2nd respondent seeking to delete the subject land from the prohibited list of properties under Section 22A(1)(a) of the 1 2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB) 10 Registration Act, in which case, the 2nd respondent shall conduct an enquiry by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, their vendors and the Forest Department and all other concerned, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with governing law and rules expeditiously, but not later than three (3) months from the date of submission of the application by the petitioner and their vendors and subject to result of the order, the 8th respondent shall act upon the Sale Deeds presented by the petitioner and their vendors. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 03.08.2022 MVA