THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
WRIT PETITION NO.3706 OF 2015
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondents 1 to 3 in occupying an extent of Ac.14.22 guntas of land belonging to the 1st petitioner in Sy.No.201/1, Saheb Nagar Kalan Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, over and above an extent of Ac.102.00 of land in the said survey number notified as forest land under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 in G.O.Ms.No.778 F&A (For-III) Department, dated 08.06.1971 and further declare the action of respondents 1 to 3 in not agreeing for a Joint Survey in respect of the land in their possession in the aforesaid survey number as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents 5 to 7 to conduct a joint survey of the entire land in the aforesaid survey number, which is in possession of respondents 1 to 3 pursuant to the notification in G.O.Ms.No.778 F&A (For-III) Department, dated 08.06.1971 in the presence of the representatives of the 1st petitioner as well as respondents 1 to 3 and further direct the respondents 1 to 3 to deliver possession of the aforesaid extent of Ac.14.22 guntas of land, if it is found in the joint survey that respondents 1 to 3 are in possession of excess land.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that an extent of 770.27 acres of land in Sy.No.201, Sahebnagar Kalan Village was registered as Arazi Maqta of Salarjung Estate. An extent of 200 acres out of 770.27 acres was found to be in possession of harijans and other backward classes of the said village, which land was fit for cultivation and accordingly the District Collector 2 (respondent No.5) informed the 3rd respondent that the aforesaid 200 acres of land cannot be reserved for notifying as forest land and the remaining extent after excluding the said 200 acres could be reserved under Section 4 of the A.P., Forest Act, 1967. Thereafter, in respect of 200 acres of land, an enquiry was conducted under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Inams Abolition Act, 1955 and Occupancy Rights Certificates were granted in respect of the said 200 acres in favour of 70 persons during the years 1979 and 1980. Pursuant to the grant of Occupancy Rights Certificates, the names of said persons were mutated in the revenue records in the year 1981 itself.
3. During the year 1980, the Project Officer, Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, addressed a letter dated 11.01.1980 to respondent No.5 and sought for submission of alienation proposals with regard to the aforesaid 200 acres of land. In response to the same, respondent No.6 addressed a letter dated 02.01.1981 informing the Project Officer that the relevant records have been verified and patta has been made in favour of 70 persons in compliance with the Ryotwari Certificates issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, that the same have been implemented in the Jama Bandhi for the year 1980 and there is no scope for treating the said 200 acres of land as Government land and hence, the question of submitting alienation proposals does not arise.
4. The first petitioner entered into an agreement of sale dated 05.01.2000 with Rachakonda Pedda Balaiah and 36 others for purchase of 97 acres of land from out of the aforesaid 200 acres 3 in Sy.No.201, Sahebnagar Kalan. The first petitioner and the vendors address a letter to the respondents 3 and 4, seeking mutation of the land under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 as well as Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules 1989. As no action was being taken, the first petitioner addressed a letter dated 29.08.2005 to the Commissioner, Land Administration to issue suitable orders to respondent Nos.5 and 6 to mutate the said land in favour of the first petitioner and issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Hyderabad by his letter No.ROM/ROR1/480/05, dated 30.09.2005 directed the 6th respondent to arrange for mutation in respect of aforesaid land subject to payment of stamp duty and registration charges.
5. The first petitioner filed W.P.No.24749 of 2005 before this Court to declare the action of respondent Nos.4 to 6 and the Revenue Divisional Officer in not conducting enquiry for implementation of mutation. The Deputy Inspector of Survey, issued a notice dated 09.04.2009 to the 1st petitioner, his vendors, 3rd respondent and Village Secretary for joint survey and demarcation of the land, Thereafter, respondent No.7 submitted a report to the 5th respondent, stating that during the survey, the Forest Range Officer, Hyderabad has informed that as per their records, the Forest Department is in possession of an extent of 102 acres of land in Sy.No.201/1 and that as per the measurements taken during survey, the Forest Department is in possession of Ac.116.22 guntas of land and that the aforesaid 97 acres of land is included in the land in occupation 4 of the Forest Department and that the Forest Department is in possession of excess of land to an extent of Ac.14.22 guntas.
6. The respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit, denying the allegations in the writ petition and stated that in fact Gurramguda Forest block with a total extent of Ac.411.20 guntas from three villages viz., Sahebnagar kalan, Gurramguda, Nadergul and Turkayamjal has been under the control and management of the Forest Department since past several years. In the year 1953, Forest Department was put in actual possession of Sy.No.201 with an extent of Ac.770.21 guntas for establishing Soil Conservation Research Center under the orders of the Board of Revenue of the erstwhile Government of Hyderabad.
7. When it was proposed to be constituted as a Reserve Forest, it was found that an extent of about Ac.200 was under encroachment, therefore, it was deleted from the proposed reservation. Consequently two forest blocks were formed viz., Sahebnagar forest block with an extent of Ac.400 and Gurramguda forest block with an extent of Ac.411.20 guntas.
8. The Government under G.O.Ms.No.778 F&A (For.III) Department, dated 18.06.1971 proposed to constitute Gurramguda Forest block as a reserve forest and issued notification under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act.
9. The Government also appointed Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad to consider objections and enquire and determine the existence of any rights in or over the land. Consequently, the 5 Forest Settlement Officer also issued declaration under Section 6 and enquiry as required under Chapter II of the Forest Act was held for final notification constituting the Forest Block as Reserve Forest under Section 15 of the Act. Under Section 7(2) of the Forest Act, 1967, granting patta in the proposed reserve forest by or on behalf of the Government is prohibited. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District set aside the Occupancy Rights Certificates. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District also directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar to make necessary amendment in the revenue records. In CCC Appeal No.84 of 1982, the High Court observed that the Forest Department perfected the title by adverse possession for a period exceeding 12 years.
10. The Tahsildar, Hayathnagar, basing on the entries made in pahani of 1979-80, has mentioned that Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar kalan village is registered as "Arazi Maqta of Salarjung Estate" but according to the same pahani, the land in Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar kalan is classified as "Kancha Poramboke Sarkari", which means the land belongs to the Government. Occupancy Rights Certificates were said to have been issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 05.12.1979. The land of 97 acres belonging to 37 persons which was purchased by the petitioners needs to be identified on the ground and surveyed for preparation of the sketch.
11. The notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act describes the boundaries by magnetic bearings and distance from station to station. The ground reality is that the area as 6 described in the notification has earned a legal status and it cannot be altered by deleting any area. The entire land is a proposed reserve forest, it can neither be de-reserved nor can it be diverted for a non forestry purpose without the prior permission of the Government of India as per Section 2 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The writ petition is not maintainable and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
12. Heard both sides.
13. The petitioner firm entered into an agreement of sale on 05.01.2000 with Rachkonda Pedda Balaiah and 36 others for purchase of Ac.97.00 guntas of land from out of Ac.200.00 guntas in Sy.No.201, Sahebnagar Kalan village. Rachakonda Pedda Balaiah and 70 others were originally in possession of the lands under Enam and thereafter, they were granted Occupancy Rights Certificates and accordingly, their names have been entered in all relevant revenue records during 1979-80 and 1981.
14. In view of the rise in land value, when there was difference of opinion between the petitioner firm and its vendors, the petitioner firm filed O.S.No.68 of 2000 on the file of II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.97.00 guntas against Rachakonda Pedda Balaiah and 36 others. The said suit was ended in compromise by judgment dated 22.03.2000.
15. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by his letter dated 30.09.2005 directed 7 respondent No.6 to arrange mutation of Ac.97.00 gutas in favour of petitioner firm. Since the orders dated 30.09.2005 were not complied, the petitioner filed W.P.No.24749 of 2005 on the file of this Court and the same has been disposed of in favour of the petitioner by order dated 15.12.2005, directing to consider for mutation.
16. The Deputy Inspector of Survey issued proceedings dated 09.04.2009 for joint survey. In the process of survey, respondent No.7 has reported to respondent No.5 that as per the records, the forest land is only an extent of Ac.102.00 guntas, but in the survey, physically, it is noticed that the forest department is in possession of Ac.116.22 guntas. Thus, the forest department is in excess possession of Ac.14.22 guntas.
17. This fact is evident from the survey report dated 29.06.2009 of the Assistant Director, Survey Land Records, Ranga Reddy District addressing the District Collector, Ranga Reddy in pursuance of the joint survey conducted on two occasions i.e., on 22.04.2009 and again on 03.06.2009 in the presence of the Survey Department Officials, Forest Range Officer, Mandal Surveyor, Village Secretary, villagers and applicants. The Survey Officials have conducted the survey by using ETS (Electronic Total Station) Machine. The land to an extent of Ac.14.22 gutas in excess was included in forest land.
18. In this regard, the Assistant Director of Survey has also prepared a sketch along with his report showing the area which is in possession of forest department in Sy.No.201/1. The said fact of excess land of the petitioner falling in forest land came to 8 light only after the survey conducted on 22.04.2009 and on 03.06.2009,
19. Respondent is a welfare State and bonafides of the respondent/forest department requires that they ought to have surrendered the excess land in favour of revenue department or to the claimants no sooner it came to its notice, stating that there is excess land found in forest land. But they failed to do so. It is unjust on the part of the forest department to retain the land to which it has no title. The action of forest department fighting for the land like a private person in the above back ground, cannot be appreciated. Forest Department being one wing of the Government and the Revenue Department being other wing, both cannot have a contradictory and inconsistent approach on a factual position.
20. The forest department, highhandedly cannot state that the excess land of Ac.14.22 guntas belongs to forest department when an independent agency of other wing of the Government i.e., Survey and Land Records has conducted joint survey in the presence of the forest officials and noted that the forest department is in excess possession of Ac.14.22 guntas.
21. The contention of the Government Pleader that the forest department has taken over the land by way of notification long ago and since then it is in possession and it developed forest and thus the subject land is not a private land. The issue said to have been resolved in CCCA No.84 of 1982 in favour of the Government and thus the claim of the petitioner is hit by principle of res-judicata.
9
22. The said contention cannot be appreciated, since neither the vendors nor the petitioner are parties to the above City Civil Court Appeal and therefore, the question of res-judicata does not arise.
23. It is evident from the record that on 29.01.2009, the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, addressed a letter to the Collector, Ranga Reddy District that the Occupancy Rights Certificates which were issued in favour of the vendors of the petitioner were cancelled by the Joint Collector during 1997, is no longer subsisting since the aggrieved persons have filed an appeal before the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Hyderabad and the said appeal has been allowed in favour of the claimants by order dated 30.09.2005 by setting aside the order of Joint Collector and further directed to issue pattadar pass books to the applicants.
24. It is not in dispute that the forest department is in excess possession of land and once it is found to be excess, the forest department has no right under Constitution of India to hold the property of a citizen or even otherwise of any other department being Government body. It is violation of Article 300A of Constitution of India.
25. In the light of Occupancy Rights Certificates issued in favour of the claimants, it is presumed that the land is private property. The forest department ought to have immediately surrendered the excess land no sooner it came to its knowledge in the survey conducted in 2009 itself, but withholding the land 10 is nothing but an arbitrary and highhanded action of the forest department. In a dispute with regard to deciding the title in respect of a property among the forest department and revenue department, which are two independent wings of State, the petitioner/citizen cannot be put to any hardship.
26. We all aware that protection of environment and forest is essential for the Nation and forest lands needs to be protected, but it does not mean that the action of forest department if they are exceeding their territorial limits and if they are in possession of the land which is other than the forest land, cannot be appreciated. In an event if the forest department is found in possession of private land, it should pay the compensation to the landlords or release the land in favour of owners. It is not disputed that the forest department has not acquired the land and they are not intending to pay any compensation. The issue to be decided by this Court is whether the forest department is in excess possession of Ac.14.22 guntas of land or not.
27. In the light of the survey report, it is found that the forest department is in possession of Ac.14.22 guntas of land in excess. As per its records, it is having only Ac.102.00 guntas. But, physically, it is in possession of Ac.116.22 guntas. Therefore, it is the bounden duty of forest department to re-deliver the possession of excess land to the revenue department and it is for the concerned revenue department to decide with regard to the right and title of subject land and the manner in which it has to be disposed of, but it is not the responsibility of the forest department to contend legal rights 11 and Occupancy Rights Certificates of the claimants when there is a specific order of the High Court in W.P.No.24749 of 2005 for mutation and also order of Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Hyderabad for issuing pattedar pass books.
28. In view of the above, it got established that the respondent forest department is in excess possession of land of Ac.14.22 guntas in Sy.No.201/1 (part) of Sahebnagar Kalan village against their actual allotment area of Ac.102.00 guntas as evident from the joint survey report which was conducted in participation with revenue and forest department officials and in the presence of claimants of the land. Therefore, the respondent forest department is directed to hand over to the revenue department the excess land in possession of respondents admeasuring Ac.14.22 guntas and the revenue department is directed to implement the orders passed in W.P.No.24749 of 2005 and redeliver the possession of land to the petitioner by following due process of law. This entire exercise shall be completed in (8) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
29. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD,J Date:15.04.2021.
Shr