Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Buddha Infra Projects vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 August, 2022

Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao

          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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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-

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

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."

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

2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB)

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