THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.419 of 2016
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Ms. D.Pramada Reddy, learned
Government Pleader for Forest representing the
appellants; Mr. Dhananjay Reddy, learned counsel for
respondents No.1 to 7/writ petitioners; and Mr. Parsa
Ananth Nageswara Rao, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.8.
2. This intra-court appeal has been filed assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.No.24341 of 2007 filed by respondents No.1 to 7 as the writ petitioners.
3. The related writ petition was filed by respondents No.1 to 7 questioning the inaction of the appellants in 2 granting permission for felling of trees/tree growth over lands in Survey Nos.68, 145, 146, 146/1, 146/2, 146/4 and 146/5 total admeasuring an extent of Acs.10.00 of land in Tharlapad Village, Khanapur Mandal, Adilabad District.
4. According to respondents No.1 to 7, they are the owners of the above land of different extents which they own by way of inheritance. They had planted teak and non-teak trees in the above patta lands. The trees have since matured for felling. In this connection, an application was made to appellant No.1 by respondents No.1 to 7 on 08.03.2006 under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970 (briefly, 'the Rules' hereinafter). Thereafter, they had approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Khanapur, for a certificate that they are the owners of the subject land entitled to felling of trees within the subject land. On such certificate being granted, the same was also enclosed before appellant No.1 who directed appellant 3 No.3 to inspect the subject land. Appellant No.3 conducted survey and submitted report granting permission to fell the tree growth vide his letter dated 07.02.2007. This letter was accompanied by survey and demarcation map, location map etc. Appellant No.2 also submitted report to appellant No.1 agreeing with the report of appellant No.3 and recommending grant of permission for such felling of trees. However, no decision was taken by appellant No.1 compelling respondents No.1 to 7 to submit another application on 05.10.2007 to appellant No.1. As no decision was forthcoming, the related writ petition came to be filed.
5. The writ petition was contested by appellant No.1 by filing counter affidavit. Amongst other things, reliance was placed on letter dated 12.12.2007 of appellant No.3 to the effect that he had inspected the patta lands with concerned staff and surveyed the same with GPS, which revealed that major portion of 4 the patta lands fell under reserve forest. Therefore, no action was taken.
6. Appellants filed further additional counter affidavit stating that as per inspection report of appellant No.3, the entire area covered by Station Nos.608 to 612 fell under reserve forest block, Sathanpally. Therefore, it was contended that the subject land was situated within the reserve forest block.
7. In their reply affidavit, respondents No.1 to 7 pointed out the various inconsistencies in the communication of appellant No.3. In G.O.Ms.No.579, dated 23.08.1979 proposing to constitute a reserve forest, subject lands were not included. No notification was issued under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967.
8. Learned Single Judge adverting to Rule 5 of the Rules, more particularly to sub-rule (3) thereof, which 5 says that the Divisional Forest Officer may, for the purpose of issue of permits for forest produce to be removed from private lands, ascertain about the rights and titles over the forest produce from such Revenue Officer of the District, as may be specified by the Conservator of Forests, with the explanation thereto, clarifying that a certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer shall be considered as conclusive evidence of the rights and titles of individuals over the tree growth, allowed the writ petition by holding that lands of the writ petitioners fell outside the reserve forest.
9. Learned Single Judge by order dated 12.02.2014 held as follows:
"10. As per the above provision, the petitioners have to submit their application to the 1st respondent in the prescribed format. The 1st respondent, for the purpose of issue of permits for the forest produce to be removed from private lands, ascertain about the rights and titles over the forest produce from the Revenue Officer of the district. The explanation under Rule 5(3) makes it clear that a certificate issued by the Revenue Officer or other 6 authorised person in the form prescribed by the concerned Conservator of Forests shall be considered as conclusive evidence of the rights and titles of individuals over the tree growth.
11. The GPA holder of the petitioners submitted the application in the prescribed form on 08-03-2006 duly enclosing the certificate of the MRO, Khanapur dated 03-03-2006. The MRO, Khanapur specifically stated in the remarks column that permission may be accorded to the petitioners as per the Rules in vogue. On the direction of the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent on 22-05-2006, the 3rd respondent submitted a report to the 1st respondent on 07-02-2007 recommending for permission to fell the existing tree-growth as per the Rules. The Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Khanapur also recommended vide his letter dated 09-02-2007 addressed to the 1st respondent for according permission to fell the existing tree-growth in the above patta lands as per the Rules. But, surprisingly, the 3rd respondent changed his stand. By his letter dated 12- 02-2007 addressed to the 1st respondent he stated that the major area falls under Reserve Forest. The 3rd respondent also addressed another letter to the 1st respondent on 31-12-2007 stating that the result of the survey indicated that the entire patta lands falls under Reserve Forest Block, Sathanpally. It appears that Tahsildar, Khanapur along with Forest Range Officer, Forest Settlement Officer, Mandal Surveyor proceeded to Tharlapad village on 06-12-2007 and conducted a joint inspection on the above patta lands and it revealed that the patta lands are situated along with the Reserve 7 Forest boundary area but they are the outside the Reserve Forest. This is revealed from the letter of the Tahsildar dated 07-12-2007. The documents filed by the petitioners obtained under the Right to Information Act revealed that in the letter of the Forest Settlement Officer, dated 29-07-2008 addressed to the District Collector, Adilabad, he commented on the three contradictory reports of the 3rd respondent. He specifically stated that the lands in the above survey number are not included in the proposed Reserve Forest Block, Sathanpally. A perusal of the gazette notification notifying G.O.Ms.No.579 dated 23-08-1979 issued under Section 4 of the Act does not contain the survey numbers in respect of Tharlapad Village.
12. Thus the above documents clearly disclose that the lands of the petitioners were never included in the notifications issued under the Act nor the petitioners were notified with regard to the inclusion of their lands in the proposed Reserve Forest. It appears that the entire delay occurred due to the complaint of one Mohd. Osman Ali on 07-03-2007 and the unnecessary reaction of the 3rd respondent consequent to the complaint. In the absence of evidence of inclusion of the petitioners' land in the Reserve Forest and in view of the statement made by the Tahsildar, Khanapur pursuant to a joint inspection stating that the lands fell outside the Reserve Forest, vide his letter dated 07-12-2007, coupled with the report of the Forest Settlement Officer, Adilabad to the District Collector, Adilabad on 29-07-2008, I have no hesitation to hold that the lands of the petitioners fell outside the Reserve Forest. In the light of this, the 1st 8 respondent has to take necessary action in accordance with the Rule 5 of the A.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the 1st respondent is directed to take action in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed."
10. In the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has taken us amongst others to the letter dated 07.12.2007 from the Tahsildar, Khanapur to the Divisional Forest Officer, Nirmal, which we have perused. As per the said letter, the Tahsildar along with Forest Range Officer, Forest Section Officer and Mandal Surveyor had proceeded to Tharlapad Village on 06.12.2007 and conducted joint inspection of the patta lands. As per the joint inspection, the patta lands were found situated along the boundary of the reserve forest, but outside the reserve forest. Thereafter, Forest Settlement Officer, 9 Adilabad, wrote to the District Collector, Adilabad, on 29.07.2008 referring to the verification of the proposed forest block map, area statement and prohibitory order book. Though the Forest Range Officer had submitted contradictory reports, nonetheless, in the conclusive portion of the letter Forest Settlement Officer held that the area in question is patta land.
11. If that be the position, no fault can be found with the final conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge.
12. At this stage, we may also mention that similar issue cropped up before us in W.A.No.99 of 2016 and W.A.No.220 of 2016. W.A.No.99 of 2016 pertains to patta land in Survey No.114 of Tharlapad Village, whereas W.A.No.220 of 2016 dealt with Survey Nos.84/1, 83/3, 83/4, 83/2, 70/2, 48, 53/2, 58, 58/6, 58/3, 57/2, 55, 54/2, 87/3, 87/5, 11/5, 50/1, 67/3, 67/2, 67/1, 61 and 67 situated at Laxmipur 10 Village of Kaddam Mandal, Adilabad District. In those appeals this Court had upheld similar directions of the learned Single Judge.
13. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and following the above decisions, we are not inclined to take a different view in the present appeal.
14. Consequently, we decline to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
15. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 20.09.2022 vs