Sandra Prasad Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Counsel for the respondents respondents: for Revenue 1. G.P. for Revenue

2. Ms. Baliboyina Sravani, A. Ms. Baliboyina Sravani, A.G.P. for Forests The Court made the following: The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J W.P.No.42387 of 2022 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents Nos.2 to 4 herein in interfering with the private patta lands of the petitioners i.e., lands in Sy.No.275/4 to an extent of Ac.1-65 cents, Sy.No.275/2B to an extent of Ac.0-82 cents, Sy.No.275/4A to an extent of Ac.1-22 cents, Sy.No.275/2C1 to an extent of Ac.0-48 cents, Sy.No.275/2A to an extent of Ac.0-82 cents situated at Kasaram Village, Thottambedu Mandal, Chittoor District (now Tirupati District), by not allowing them to cut the Eucalyptus trees existing in the lands, in spite of the permission granted by the respondent No.5 herein vide proceedings Roc.A/41 /2020 dated

12.09.2022 as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the established principles of law and further in violation of right to property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents Nos.2 to 4 herein to not to interfere with the subject lands of these petitioners and pass.…” The case of the petitioners is briefly stated as follows: The petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of land

2. a. in Sy.No.275/4 to an extent of Ac.1-65 cents, Sy.No.275/2B to an extent of Ac.0-82 cents, Sy.No.275/4A to an extent of Ac.1-22 cents, Sy.No.275/2C1 to an extent of Ac.0-48 cents, Sy.No.275/2A to an extent of Ac.0-82 cents situated at Kasaram Village, Thottambedu 3 BSB, J W.P.No.42387 of 2022 Mandal, Chittoor District (now Tirupati District). The total extent of land is Ac.4.99 cents. Originally, the subject lands are the government lands and the petitioners were given the subject lands vide DKT Patta Nos.9214/1406 and 9314/1406 in the year 1996 and pattadar pass books were also issued in favour of the petitioners vide patta Nos.1295 and 1014 respectively. The names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records and 1-B adangals are issued to the petitioners. b. From the date of grant of pattas the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject lands by raising Eucalyptus trees in the said lands. Now the trees are ripe for cutting. As such, the petitioners made an application dated 18.08.2022 to the respondent No.5 herein seeking permission to cut the Eucalyptus trees in the subject lands. The respondent No.5 / Tahsildar, Thottambedu Mandal, issued proceedings dated 12.09.2022 vide Roc.A/41 /2020 granting permission for cutting and transportation of Eucalyptus trees. c. While the matter stood thus, when the petitioners approached their lands and started cutting the Eucalyptus trees, the respondent No.4 / Divisional Forest Officer, East Wildlife Division, Chittoor, along with his office personnel obstructed the petitioners. The petitioners immediately showed the copies of their DKT pattas, pattadar passbooks, 1-B adangal and the permission accorded by respondent No.5 to the respondent authorities, but the respondent No.4 refused to heed to the request of the petitioners and demanded to stop the cutting or else threatened to implicate the petitioners in false and frivolous cases. d. Hence, the writ petition was filed. 4 BSB, J W.P.No.42387 of 2022

3. The respondent No.4 filed counter affidavit briefly stating as follows: a. Madhu Naidu submitted representation dated 18.08.2022 and the respondent No.5 granted permission for cutting and transportation of Eucalyptus trees in the subject land vide proceedings dated 12.09.2022. b. The forest staff inspected the subject land on 26.06.2022 and reported that the subject land was notified under Section 15 of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 and noticed that forest land over an extent of Ac.4.98 cents was encroached by the petitioner No.2 and another. c. The revenue department has given the pattas under the mistake of fact and in this regard, the respondent No.4 addressed a letter to the District Collector, Tirupati vide Rc.No.104/2022/S4, dated 24.11.2022, informing the factual situation of the subject land. d. The Forest Range Officer, Srikalahasti addressed a letter to the respondent No.5 vide Rc.No.74/2022/SKHT, dated 07.10.2022, requesting to depute the concerned staff from revenue department for a joint survey and also for taking action for cancellation of DKT pattas issued, if any, in reserve forest area. e. One Sandra Subrahmanyam Naidu and six others of Kondrajupalli Village, Thottambedu Mandal have filed suit in O.S.No.70 of 2020 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, against the petitioner No.2 and two others regarding the subject land in Survey No.275 of Kondrajupalli village which is said to be classified as grazing land. The case is pending and the case stands posted to 07.02.2023 as verified in the web portal. 5 BSB, J W.P.No.42387 of 2022

4. This Court directed to conduct a joint survey by the respondents on 29.10.2025. Accordingly, joint survey was conducted on 06.12.2025 and 08.12.2025 and the report was placed on record along with maps.

5. The conclusion part of the joint survey report reads as follows: “As per the Revenue records, a total land to an extent of Ac.2.70 cents occupied with Eucalyptus and Lemon trees by the writ petitioners, Sri S. Madhu Naidu to an extent of 1.14 acres (Reserve Forest) & Extent: 1.15 acres in Sy.No.275/6 (buffer forest area) total extent: Ac.2.29 cents (Eucalyptus trees) and Sri S.Prasad Naidu to an extent of Ac.0.41 cents in Sy.No.275/6 (Buffer Forest area - Lemon Trees) which falls under Reserve Forest. As per the Kasaram Reserve Forest Gazette which is notified U/s. 15 of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 vide G.O.Ms.No.1216, Food & Agriculture (For-III) Department, dated: 30.06.1969, a total extent of 5.14 Acres of notified Kasaram Reserve Forest land is under the illegal occupation of the writ petitioners.”

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners were earlier permitted to take the yield and now also permission was accorded but forest officials prevented petitioners from harvesting the trees, the petitioners may be allowed to harvest the trees as per the permission accorded, because the officials of the forest department have to take legal steps to get the petitioners evicted from the forest land, if any, encroached by the petitioners. 6 BSB, J W.P.No.42387 of 2022

7. On the other hand, the learned counsels representing the respondents submitted that the petitioners cannot be permitted to take the yield from the land under encroachment.

8. As can be seen from the joint survey report, the tope was raised not just in Ac.4.99 cents, but further extended to the adjacent land. As per the certificate, part of the property of Ac.4.99 cents and part of the adjacent land where eucalyptus tope was raised are part of the forest area. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to harvest eucalyptus trees within the portion of forest area, but they can be permitted to harvest the trees out of the area of the forest, as per the permit issued by the Tahsildar.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to harvest eucalyptus trees in the land permitted by the Tahsildar, Thottambedu Mandal, vide Roc.A/41/2020, dated

12.09.2022, except the land of Kasaram reserve forest as identified in the joint survey. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

24.03.2026 NSM / RAR ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J