Y. Lakshmi Reddy & Ors. v. Divisional Forest Officer, Proddatur, Kadapa District & Ors.

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.14302 of 2003 ORDER:- The petitioners 1 to 3 are seeking writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in seeking to interfere with their possession of Ac.2.50 cents of land each in S.No.423 of Peddaputta Village, Vallur Mandal, Kadapa District, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently directing them not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in S.No.423. The petitioners claim that Peddaputta Grama Dana Sarvodaya Cooperative Society granted leasehold rights on 15.02.1989 in Ac.2.50 cents of land each in S.No.423 of Peddaputta Village for a period of 99 years on certain conditions. It is their case that when they have been in possession of the said leasehold land in their own right, the 2nd respondent unlawfully interfered with their possession and enjoyment of the said land and took away two motors, pipes and related equipment. The 2nd respondent filed counter on behalf of the respondents contending inter alia that the petitioners have encroached into reserve forest land in S.No.806 of Kamalapuram Reserve Forest and are not in possession of S.No.423 of Peddaputta Village and that they are misrepresenting facts to this Court.

It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that on requisition of Mandal Revenue Officer, Vallur, for determination of boundary of S.No.423 of Peddaputta and Kamalapuram Reserve Forest- Block No.1 on ground, the Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records, Kadapa, after making inspection of the lands, gave letter, dated 01.05.1993, to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vallur Mandal and that even as per the said letter of the Assistant Director, land in S.No.423 of Kadapa is not in Block No.1 of Kamalapuram Reserve Forest. On total reading of the said letter, dated 01.05.1995, of the Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records, Kadapa, addressed to Mandal Revenue Officer, Vallur Mandal, it is evident that the Assistant Director perused only maps produced by forest officials as well as revenue officials and did not make any measurements of lands with reference to the said maps and with reference to village boundaries and gave the said letter on presumptive arguments. The said letter of the Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records, Kadapa, is not going to determine the dispute with regard to the boundary between land in S.No.423 and Kamalapuram reserve forest.

According to the respondents, under the guise of entering into leasehold land in S.No.423, the petitioners have occupied land in S.No.806, which is part of reserve forest area. The question whether the petitioners are in S.No.423, which is their leasehold land or in S.No.806, which is part of reserve forest, is one of fact, which this Court may not be in a position to go into and decide in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

It is alternatively contended by the petitioners’ counsel that in case the petitioners are in possession of any forest land in S.No.806, then the respondents have to follow the procedure prescribed by Section 20(3)(iii) proviso of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and that the respondents have no authority to remove the alleged encroachment of the petitioners without following the procedure by way of giving opportunity to them to make any representation against the proposed action. The petitioners’ counsel when asked, says that the petitioners are not admitting that they are in possession of reserve forest land in S.No.806 and that it is their contention that they are in possession of leasehold land in S.No.423 only. In case the petitioners are in possession of land in S.No.423 only, Section 20(3)(iii) proviso of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 has no application to the petitioners. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by any interference by the forest officials on the ground that the petitioners are encroaching into any land in S.No.806, then remedy of the petitioners is to approach civil Court for appropriate relief, in which event, the civil Court, at the instance of the parties, will localize the lands and determine in which land the petitioners are. Hence, because of disputed question of fact involved in this writ petition, this writ petition is not maintainable.