The Divisional Officer, 2 Others, vs Peddi Ganga Mallu, 7 Others,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4747 Tel

      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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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