Dantuluri Narasimha Raju v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and 2 others
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 06 Jan 2012
- Bench
- G ROHINI
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.919 OF 2003
O R D E R: This writ petition filed seeking a declaration G.O.Ms.No.543, Forests and Rural Development (Forests-III) Department, dated 02.06.1976 under which the forest land situated in survey Nos.412, 413, 414, 424/1, 426, 434, 427, 430/2 and 435 of Koyyam Village admeasuring 285.91 acres of Srikakulam District is declared as the protected forest under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for short, ‘the Act’), is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner herein claims to be in possession and enjoyment of Ac.6.27 cents of land situated in survey Nos.412 and 413 of Koyyam village. It is stated that the said land was purchased by his father D.B.Seetarama Raju from one Ippili Suri Babu and others under registered sale deed dated 18.06.1993. It is claimed that since then the petitioner and his brothers along with his father have been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. It is also pleaded that after the death of the petitioner’s father, his brother D.Subba Raju was looking after the cultivation and since 1997 the petitioner has been looking after the cultivation since his brother was not taking proper care.
It is alleged that on 13.01.2003, the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Etcherla Mandal objected to the cultivation of the land by the petitioner stating that the 2nd respondent-Divisional Forest Officer had informed that the land in possession of the petitioner forms part of the protected forest and therefore, they should not be permitted to enter into the said land. It was found by the petitioner that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.543 dated 02.06.1976 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 24 of the Act declaring certain land situated in Koyyam village including land in survey Nos.412 and 413 as the protected forest. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that the land in possession of the petitioner is his own land and that the action of the respondents in including the said land in the notification dated 02.06.1976, is arbitrary and illegal.
It is alleged that though it is mandatory duty of the Government under Section 24 of the Act to inquire into the nature and extent of the rights of the Government and of private persons before notifying the land as protected forest, no such enquiry was held. In the counter affidavit filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Srikakulam, it is stated that the petitioner’s brother Dantuluri Subba Raju had earlier filed Writ Petition No.20398 of 1996 challenging the very same G.O.Ms.No.543, dated 02.06.1976 and the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by order dated 30.11.1998. Even on merits, it is contended that the petitioner is a mere encroacher and the title claimed under a registered sale deed dated 18.06.1993 cannot be accepted since the said land was declared as protected forest long back in the year 1976. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.24445 of 2000 dated
Operative part
01.02.2010 under which the same notification was challenged by some other land holders so far as Ac.17.35 cents of land situated in survey No.435 is concerned. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court observing that no details were furnished to show that the inquiry as required under Section 24 of the Act was conducted and therefore, the only course left open to the respondents is to file regular civil suit, if they are interested in claiming title over the subject matter for declaring the same as ‘protected forest’. The learned counsel vehemently contended that the ratio laid down in the above said decision is squarely applicable to the case on hand and therefore, the Writ Petition has to be allowed. I do not find any substance in the said contention. Admittedly, the petitioner’s brother had earlier filed Writ Petition No.20398 of 1996 in respect of the land, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition. A copy of the order passed in the said writ petition has been placed before this Court by the learned Government Pleader. As could be seen, this Court, while recording a finding that the land belongs to the Forest Department and it is in their possession, dismissed the writ petition by order dated 30.11.1998. Having allowed the said order to become final, it is not open to the petitioner to reagitate the same issue in the present writ petition. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the said ground alone. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 06.01.2012 Ivd
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 — s. 24.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 06 Jan 2012. The bench was G ROHINI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.