I . Kotturi RaghaVulu v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue a Writ, Order or direction rnore in the nature of Mandamus, ...RESPONDENTS declaring the action of the respondents Forest Authorities in trying to disposes the petitioners from tl'te Forest lands situated in Subbampet Reserve Forest, Charla Mandal, Bhadradri, Kothagudem District to an extent of Ac.75.00 (Each petitioner to an extent of Ac.15.00), in spite of the representation r:f the petitioners dt. 26- O3-2O17, without following the procedure prescribed under Forest Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (Act 2 of 2007) and Rules 2007 including the Foresr: Act, 1967 is iltegal and void and opposed to Article 14, 19,21 and 300-A of Constitution of lndia and consequently to direct the respondents to grant pattas 1.o the petitioners in the said lands in question as per the above said Forest Schr:duled Tribes and other Traditional Foresl Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (Act 2 of 2OO7) and Rules ilOO7. l.A. NO: I OF 201'I(WPMP. NO: 17070 OF 2O17l Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents not to disposes the petitioners from the Forest lands situated in Subbampet Reserve Forest, Charla Mandal, Bhadradri, Kcrthagudem District to an extent of Ac.75.00 (Each petitioner to an extent of Ac.15.00), pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the P,etitioner : SRI MUMMANENI SRINwA,S/\ RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.13755 of 20a7 ORDER: Heard Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao' learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Forests, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 6.

2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under: "...to issue a Writ Order or direction more in the nature oF Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents Forest Authorities in trying to dispossess the petitioners from the Forest lands situated in Subbampet Reserve Forest, Charla Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District to an extent of Ac.75.00 (each petitioner to an extent of Ac.15.00) in spite of the representation of the petitioners dated 26-03-2017 without following the procedure prescribed under Forest Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (Act 2 of 2007) and Rules 2007 including the Forest Act, L967 is illegal and void and opposed to Articles L4, L9,21 and 3O0A of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to grant pattas to the petitionerc in the said lands in question as per the above said Forest Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional 2 Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (Act 2 of 2OOt) and Rules 2007, and to pass..,". Dwellers (Recognition of Forest wP_13755 20t7

3. The case of the petitioners in brief is that petitioners belong to Scheduled Tribes and had been living in Subbampet reserye forest, charra Mandar, Bhadradri Kothagcrdem District. The petitioners coristructed houses in the said fbrest land and are eking out crops at ag.icultural raising their livelihood by Reserve Forest, Subbampet Charla Itlanda l, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. Later on, the petitioners shifted their residence to Ramanujapuram Village and :;tarted agricultural operations by raising agricultural crops. whire things stood thus, the Forest Department officials high handedl,r/ entered into the petitioners lands and destroy-ed the crops and crismanred the huts tn first week of April, 2O77. On 26.03.20t7 the petitioners submitted representations to the 6h respon,Jent for grant of pattas under Forest Act and Rules and t€quested to the r€spondent authorities not to dispossess the petitioners from ttreir. lands. But the authorities refused to accept the same. Hence the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD wP 13755 20t7 4. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of 2"d resoondent in particular No.2 is extracted hereunder: 3 "2. In reply to para 2 averments it is submitted that it is a fact that the petitioners have illegally occupied the Reserve Forest in Cornpartment No.BO of Charla Range to an extent of (75) Acres for which forest offence cases have been booked against the petitioners in POR No.004309/87, dated 23.07.ZOO7\ POR No.001785/36, dated 17.06.20LO; POR No.001799/36, dated 12.07.20O7; and POR No.008604/173, dated 31.01.201.2. Presentlv the occuoied Reserve Forest land is under the oossession of oetitioners. As he writ have never tried to d sDose tn Subb m Deta Died Fore Reserve Forest of Charla Ranoe of Charla Mandal. Further, the Forest Range Officer, Charla have stated that he himself, Deputy Range Officer, Charla and Forest Beat Officer, Charla altogether thoroughly verified the field and concluded ttrat no daims oertains to these (5) petitions are available with his office and I.T.D.A. offie for issue of Titles under Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dw,ellers (Recoqnition of Forest Riqhts) Act, 2006". e Detitione lands situa e

5. Learned Government Pleader for Forests submits that notices had been issued ind ividually to the petitioners calliflg upon the petitioners to produce the title deeds pertaining to the subject 4 wP_r3755 2oi7 lands i.er. Reserve Forest in Compartment No.BO. It is the specific case of the respondents that the petitioners had illegally encroached the Reserve Forest in Compartment No.B0 and are doing agriculture and the said illegal encroachment of Reser:ve Forest is an offence under Sections 30 (c) (vii) and 20 (d) of the Forest Act, 1967 and at the stage when the notices had been issued to the petitioners, the petitioners had approached the Court by fiting the present writ petition.

6. A bare perusal of the averrnents made in the counter affidavit fired by the 2nd respondent (referrecr to and extracted above), clearly indicates that the subject land is under the possession of the petitioners and at the stage when the notices had been issued to the petitioners, the petition€rrs approached the Court and filed the pres€nt writ petition.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that during the pendenry of the present writ petition and subsequent to the filing of the pr€sent writ petition, notices had been issued calling upon the petitioners to produce the tifle deeds pertaining to the subject lands alleging that petitioners had illegally encroached the Reserve Forest in 5 Compartment No.Bo and that the petitioners agricultural operations in the subject area ' $r, wP_li?55 2017 are doing It is represented by the learned Government Pleader for 8. Forests appearing on behalf oF the respondent Nos' 1 to 6 that the writ petition could be disposed of directing the petitioners to submit detailed explanation in response to the notices issued to the petitioners calling upon the petitioners to produce the documents, title deeds pertaining to the subject land and explain in detail the specific plea of the respondents that the petitioners had illegally encroached the Reserve Forest in Compartment No.80 and are conducting agricultural operations unauthorizedly said exPlanation the and upon petitioners submitting the respondents would consider the same orders, in accordance to law within a reasonable period' and Pass aPProPriate The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 9. petitioflers does not dispute the said submissions made by the learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 6'

10. Takino into consideration (a) The submissaons made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Governnxent pleader ofthe respondehts. 6 wP 13755 2017 for Forests appearing on behalf Upon consent of both the tearned counsel on record, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to submit cletailed explanation enclosing all the retevant documents in response to the notices issued by the respondents to the petitioners pettaining to the specific plea that: the petitioners had illegally encroached the Reserve lEorest in Compartment No.gO of Charta Range, Charla M;rndal, Bhadradri_Kothagudem E)istrict, and that the petitioners are conducting agricultural operations un_ authorizedly in respect of the subiect landls duty producing relevant titl,e deeds in favour of the petitioners pertaining to the saad subiect lands within a period of three (3) weeks frorn the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the 3'd respondent herein and upon the petitioners submitting the detaikd exptanation, with the requisite documents in support of petitioners, case the 3d rr:spondent shatl consider the same in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice and pass apgrropriate orders within four (4) weeks thereafter and dury communacate the wP 11755 2017 decision to the petitioners. However, there shall be no 7 order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. / To, //TRUE COPYII / sD/- ASS ISTANT REG MAJI SECTIO N OFFICER "*,^3t3i,1fi fu :L[."[*secretary,Forest,Depa(ment 'J::,.:,51:i:,'fi lfl 2. The Forest Range Officer, Charla, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. 3. The Deputy Range Officer, Charla, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. 4. The Forest guard, Charla, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. 5. The Forest watcher, Charla, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. "I!fiff l?:,.T8[1"r"?H';3:ff 1:Sfl;,ffilpHfl rr,,,"no,r,Bhadradri, 7. One CC to SRI MUMMANENI SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate. IOPUCI u to GP FoR FoREsrs, Hish court for the S{ate of retansana. ld[:,n""" 9. Two CD Copies. BSK PAc.. i i HIGH COURT DATED:2710112025 ( I ) I \ rR4 1 $E 9rA I 6 g 6 t'lAB 2025 DFsln.'rCH g_O (( D :.1 t:. .} ORDER WP.No.13755 of 2017 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS t> P^r.q \4\'-\'4