The High Court · 2025

96. Raya Srinivasulu, S/o. Krishnaiah,

97. Dasari Venkataiah, S/o. Bayyanna,

98. Uduthanoori Yallaiah, S/o. Bayyanna,

99. Mandi Yallamma, Wo. Krishnaiah,

100. M. Salamma, W/o. Niranjan, 101 . Dasari Venkataiah, S/o. Ramachandraiah,

102. Uduthanoori Kotaiah, S/o. Guruvaiah,

103. Uduthanoori Venkataiah, S/o. Chandraiah All are residents ofJangaredd ipalli Village, Amrabad Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. (Respondents 6 to't03 are impleaded as per Court Order dated 24-08- 2012 in WPMP No. 25344 ot 2012) ...RESPONDENTS 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 toto issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of h/andamus, directing the respondents herein to grant pattas to the petitioners inrespect of land admeasuring Acres 164.20 gts which is known as kandlakunta. ReQadi [being Acres 100.00 cents in Peda Regadi and Acres 60.00 cents in Chinna Regadi and Acres 4.00 cents incrama Kantaml in Pedra Village, Achampet Taluk, Amrabad Mandal, Mahabubnagar District or any other suitable lands for rehabilitation of the petitioners by way of compensation for sub-merging their lands in Dindi Project. l.A. NO: 1 OF il01 WPMP. NO: 10185 0F 2 0121 Petit on urr - section 151 cpc praying that in the circ,rrnstrnces stated in the affidavit lile: I support of the petition, fhe High Court rray be pleased to direct the respo rlents herein to allow the petiJioners I-e.ein to carry on agriculturar oporerl r'r1s in the rands admeasuring Acres.164.20 gts,vhich is known as kandlakuntir Ii:,:tadi [being Acres 100.00 cents in peda Flegadi and Acres 60.00 cents in Ol .ira Regadi and Acres 4.00 cents inGrama (a.rtaml in pedra Village, Achanrlre Taluk, Amrabad Mandal, Mahabubnagar Di:;trict. pending disposal of the .r ir - writ petition. Counsel for the Dr titioner : SRt K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the lf r spondents No.1,3&5: cp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the l?r spondent No.4 : SRI A.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the lle ipondent No.6to103: _- The Cou( made th r following: ORDER 1 wp_4o31 2O1Z NB(, J THE ON'BLE SRI IUSTICE NAG ESH BHEEM PAKA WRIT PETITION No.8037 o ot2 ORDER: The petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to grant pattas for land measuring Ac.164.20 guntas in Kandlakunta Regadi [comprising 100 acres in Peda Regadi, 60 acres in Chinna Regadi, and 4 acres in Grama Kantam) in Pedra Village, Achampet Taluk, Amrabad Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, or other suitable lands as compensation for submerging their lands in the Dindi Project. The petitioners, belonging to SC/ST and backward classes, were owners of nearly 200 acres in Nizamabad Village, which was submerged under the Dindi Project. The government issued G.O.Ms.No.277l on 23.12.1,960, allotting 184 acres from the reserved forest area for rehabilitation. Of this, Ac.164.20 guntas were assigned to the petitioners/forefathers at 5 acres each, with physical possession handed over on 13.06.7967. A20- year lease was granted for Kumri cultivation, and the petitioners have since cultivated cashew crops. Despite the interim injunction dated

29.0t.7982 granted by the High Court in WP No. 584 of 7982 and final orders dated 31.03.1982 allowing agricultural operations, pattas were not granted. The court disposed of the writ petition on 09.06.1987, directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation. A Memo No. 12797/CM's Cell/lll/B8 was issued on 72.04.L989 for a report, but no action was taken. The order granting status quo on 20.1,0.2003 remained in force until the disposal of the writ petition. The vacate stay petition filed by the 3'd respondent in WV MP No.119 of 2005 was dismissed. Despite the \ \l\ z wp 8037-2012 N8K, J orders dated iC 10.2003 and 08.72.2004, the District Ccllector and officials obstruc t,,l cultivation, citing court directions favoring third parties. The tlrjrr ltarties filed WP No.B523 of 2008, suppressing facts and excluding th ,petitioners. The petitioners have been in possession since 1967, as co rfirmed in WP No.5B4 of t982, which dilected officials not to disposs ::;s 1hem. The Dis:r'ir W.P.No.B523 of ,l orders in WP M P filed WA No.123 2008, heard al:nr The counter atf ic and possession rehabilitation irltr on 05.08.2009 r r: third parties' ::r Officeq, and Di"'i si recommendecl p r issue pattas. Tt: L967, face threats rights to contir t e 4c.164.20 gull..a implementation o quo on 20.10.1200 possession by c,r i6 sought police l petitioners cla rn ) t Collector; based on the direction of th is Court in )t.)8, denied the petitioners access to thr, Izrnd, despite 1,,1o.19804 of 2004 dated 28.12.2004. The peririoners , of 2008 challenging the orders in WP \,1o.8523 of side WP No.13354 of 2003 and WP No.29,15 of 2003. :r,zits filed by the Government adlnitterl t)re tenancy of the petitioners over Ac.164.20 1;untas for r the Dindi Project submergence. An enquLry ordered : ljrmed the petitioners' possession anrl rr:iected the rns. The Revenue Divisional Officer, District Tribal rnal Forest Officer upheld the petil,ioner.s' :laims and rrting pattas. Howeve4, no action has teen taken to -,etitioners, dependent on agricultural inr:ome since rf eviction, and therefore seek enforce nent of their orltivation. The petitioners continued culr:ivation on ; and filed WP No.7945 of 2100:l seeking l.0.Ms.No.2 771 and paftas. The Court g -anted status based on the District Collector's report confirming irral Iessees or their legal heirs. The petitioners also :,[ection against third-party interl.eren,:e. The :)ntitlement to pattas for Ac.164.,!.( I,luntas as I i i t, : I i I 3 wp_ao37,2OlZ NBK, J rehabilitation for their submerged lands, having not claimed compensation so far.

2. Respondent No.Z filed counter affidavit inter alia stating as follows: The petitioners' forefathers, belonging to SC/ST/BC communities' cultivated nearly 200 acres in Nizamabad village, submerged under the Dindi Project. As per G.O.Ms. No.2777, Agriculture Department' dated

23.12.1960,1-64acresinKandlakuntaRegadi,AmrabadReserveForest' were leased to Hariians and landless poor for 20 years for kumri cultivation. After the lease, the lessees filed w.P. No.584 0f 1982 seeking pattas. The High Court, on Og.06.7987 , directed the petitioners to apply to authorities within 3 weeks, directing the authorities to dispose of the applications in 2 months. The Collector, Mahbubnaga6' submitted a report on 09.03.1991, requesting de-reservation of forest land' but no orders were issued. It is stated that Chenchus of Jangamreddipally interfered, prompting the petitioners to file W'P' No'13504 of 2003 and W.P.No.7945 of 2003 seeking enforcement of G'O'Ms' No' 277t and to issue pattas for Ac.1.64.20 guntas. On 0B'01'2004, the High Court noted only 2 original lessees and 11 representatives were in possession' maintaining status quo for 13 lessees' It is further stated that Dasari Nagaiah and others filed W'P' No' 8523 of 2008, seeking pattas based on an application dated 1.8'02'2008' The court disposed of the writ petition on 11'06'2008' directing consideration of their representation. The Revenue Divisional officer, Nagarkurnool, submitted a report on 25'08'2008' identifying 42 original lessees [14 STs, 18 SCs, 10 BCs), with 24 new claimants \.\ \ wp so37 _2072 NBK, ] \g- I unrelated lo th originar lessees. It is also stated that urlcLer the Forest Rights Act, it0i t., forest rights require occupation br:for,r 13.12.2005 (STsJ or lbr 7 ' years fother traditionar dwer]ers'r. The colrectorl Mahabubnagar, :.,sued proceedings on 07.09.200g, stating,.:laims would be processec r iler the Act, pending the writ pet.ition. The TahsildaC Amrabad, repo rr:d on 20.04.2072 that no..go\/ernnrert land was available fr:r;r:;s ;:.nment. Nenavath fagan and others filed \,VA No. 1236 of 2008 agairst rre orders in Wp. No. BS23 of 2008 dari:d 11.06.200g, which was dilrfrc ;,'rd of with the following directions: "ln view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and especially having re(la'.J to the fact that this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Arri(:k 226 of the Constitution of lndia would not ventu re to go into a[ sucr disputed claims or decide possession or entrflement thereto, it is relt desirabte that the concerned authorities irlmediately take up the ir sue and hold a regular and comprehensive enqrliry and determine, a I such questions as to the entiflement an d take appropriate ( ecision and pass orders for grant of pattas to eligible persons. rr) his connection, it is fert desirabre that the District corrector, M rhabubnagar sha[ make such exercise in more expeditiorrs r tanner after providing due and necessary opportunity to the parties concerned and as well giving a due publicity in and around the :( ncerned place with sufficient time gap.,, The Distli :t r-lollector after an enquiry by the DI:O, ,,\champet, DTW, Mahbubnaqi r", and RDO, Nagarkurnool, rejected the applications of Dasari Nag;,alr ; I rd others on 79.04.2011, citing false dor;ur.nents and failure to meet th:, r:i-year possession requirement under tre RoFR Act, 2006. The petitrc,n:rs, claiming possession since 1967 do meetthe ^or - a: 5 wp_ao31_zoLz NSK, J 75-year requirement under Section 3 of the RoFR Act, 2006, as confirmed by the RDO's report dated 25.08.2008.

3. Heard Mr.K. Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State; Mr. A.Venkataramana, learned counsel for respondent No'4; learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No'5; and the learned Government Pleader for Forests. Perused the record' 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are landless poori belonging to Scheduled caste/scheduled Tribe and Backward class communities, and their sole source of income is cultivation. It is further contended that the fathers and forefathers of petitioners were owners and possessors of 200 acres of land in Nizamabad Village, Amrabad Taluh which was submerged under the Dindi Project. In response to their protests, the government allotted 164 acres of land in Kandlakunta Regadi [comprising 100 acres in Peddaregadi, 60 acres in Chinnaregadi, and 4 acres in Grama Kantam) for rehabilitation and agriculture through G'O' Ms' No' 2771' and the land was leased for 20 years for Kumri fKumari) cultivation, with physical possessibn handed over in 7967' lt is further submitted that when the revenue authorities have initiated steps for issuing pattas, forest officials obstructed agricultural operations, and some farmers filed w.P. No. 584 of lg\2,wherein the court directed the petitioners to file fresh representations and allowed them to continue cultivation until their representations were considered. Learnedcounselfurthercontendsthatwhentherespondents again interfered with their possession and cultivation, the petitioners j l 5 wp-8031 2072 NBK, ] filed w'p Nr ''tg45 0f 2003,seekingpatta s for'l 64ar.res in Kandrakunta Regadi lll rim orders were granted on 0g.122004, ailowing agricultu -:r I I,erations. The writ petition, along wr th !,{p. No. 13504 of 2003,WI'. N r 10860 of 2004,and W.A. No. 1236 of 2008, was disposed of on (t5.011. lrt0g, direct.ng the authorities to granting rrl rs under rhe Schedule, ,ilr:.:Hr:: ;.ffi:; Forest Dra,t,,ll :rs fRecognition of Forest Rights] Ac1, ,,.006. Learned counsel fu'1 h I I contends that, in pursuance of the co u rt,.; directions, the District Colle, ron Mahabubnagal conducted an enqurry and submitted a report or 11 confirming that2gout orgB applicants were in possessi.r'r 'f 'rqriculturar rands in padra and Janganr l,leddy vi,ages, Amrabad IVI:'n r al' It is also contended that the petirion.rs are erigible for paftas :n,,:r the Forest Rights Act,2006,as conlirmed by the respondenti i; their counters, the Gram panchayaf i.esolution dated 22.09.2009, irr:l the panchanama dated 22.08.2008. Learned counsel would the ref<r r r r:ontend that the writ petition ma-v be a,o,,ved directing the responden : to grant pattas to the petitioners u,d,tr the Forest '3'2011 Righrs Acr, 200 , ' and Other liarl rional I Learneci c unser for the petitioner reries on the richeduled Tribes Act, 2 o o 6,(--h a p :,r r," ff::il:n"j:::il::: ff ,; :rT:I: Rights and Rela,rd matters, wherein it is stated under paragraph 4 thereof, as fol cv:: (4)A riglrt c rnferred alienable or ransferal of both the sr)ouses ,1," the singr(, h, ad in ,n' sub-section (i) shall be heritable but not ,no shall be registered joinfly in fhe name "'"" of married persons and in the name of e case of a household headed by a lsingle l wP 8037_2012 NBK, ' person and in the absence of a direct heir, the heritable right shall pass on to the next-of-kin. Learned counsel further relies on Rule 13 of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dweller-s (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2007, which reads as follows: (1) "13. Evidence for determination of forest rights: The evidence for recognition and vesting of forest rights shall' inter alia, include (a) public documents, Government records such as Gazetteers,census,surveyandsettlementreports'maps'satellite imagery working plans, management plans' micro-plans' forest enquiry reports, other forest records, record of rights by whatever name called, pattas or leases, reports of committees and commissions constituted by the Government' Government orders' notifications, circulars, resolutions; (b) Government authorized documents such as voter identify card, ration card' passport' house tax receipts, domicile certificates; (c) physical attributes such as house, huts and permanent improvements made to land including levelling,bunds,checkdamsandthelike;(d)quasi-judicialand judicial records including court orders and judgments; (e) research studies, documentation of customs and traditions that illustrate the enioyment of any forest rights and having the force of customary law, by reputed. institutions, such as Anthropological Survey of lndia; (0 any record including maps, record of rights' privileges' concessions,favours,fromerstwhileprincelyStatesorprovinces or other such intermediaries; (g) traditional structures establishing antiquity such as wells, burial grounds' sacred places; (h) genealogy tracing ancestry to individuals mentioned in earlier land records or recognized as having been legitimate resident of the village at an earlier period of time; (i) statement of elders other than claimants, reduced in writing An evidence for Community forest Rights shall' inter alia' include (a) community rights such as nistar by whatever name called; (b) traditional grazing grounds; areas for collection of roots and tubers' 8 wp-8037 2012 NBK, J community practitio n et fodder, wik grounds; i livestoc( l or crematio (3) The Gr; District l-ev edible fruits and other minor forest produce; fishing r igation systems; sources of water for hurnan or s;e, medicinal plant collection territories of herbal ; (c) remnants of structures built by the local :sacred trees, groves and ponds or riverine area!;,, burial ) qrounds; 'na Sabha, the Sub-Divisional Level Committee and the , Committee shall consider more than one of the above- v;dences in determining the forest rights. 5. Learnerl G:vernment Pleader for Forests relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Srrpr:rne Court in State of Telangana 1,. Mohd. Abdul Qasiml, anrl rl -a i,.,s the attention of the court to paragt.aptL Nos.3B, 40, 62,65,67 ,69,'t .2 i5,84, and 89 therein, relevant portionr; o:.which read as follows: mentionerl , Understand, 'tg of the forest: A constitutional perspective

38. Article 4l upon the !it; 51-A(g) corr improve the wildlife anC two prov is, i< Articles 14 1 represenl tl continued e; humanity,r€ interpretatio provisions -A of the Constitution of India imposes a clear mandate te as a directive principle of State policy, while Article spondingly casts a duty upon a citizen to protect and ratural environment including forests, lakes, riverrs and o have compassion for fellow living creatures. These ns qua a forest ought to be understood in light of I and 2'l of the Constitution of lndia. We say sD, ars they s collective conscience of .the Constitution. lf the istence and protection of forests is in the interest of 'ious species and nature, then there can be no other than to read the constitutional ethos into these Pandey v. State of W.B. lSachidanand Relevance o; directive principtes of State poticy 4O.Sachidani nd Pandey v. liti te of W.8., (1glEtl Z SCC 29SI : (SCC p. 30S, para 4) "4. ln lndia, a i elsewhere in the world, uncontrolled growth and the consequent -"nvironmental deterioration are fast assrrming menacing l)r rDortions and all lndian cities are afflicted rvith this problem. f rr once lmperial City of Calcutta is no exception. The '(2024) 6 scc 46:. l t 9 wp_8037 2012 NBK,,I question raised in the present case is whether the Government of West Bengal has shown such lack of awareness of the problem of environment in making an allotment of land for the construction of a Five Star Hotel at the expense of the zoological garden that it warrants interference by this Court? Obviously, if the Government is alive to the various considerations requiring thought and deliberation and has arrived at a conscious decision after taking them into account, it may not be for this Court to interfere in the absence of mala fides. On the other hand, if relevant considerations are not borne in mind and irrelevant considerations influence the decision, the court may interfere in order to prevent a likelihood of prejudice to the public. Whenever a problem of ecology is brought 'beiore the court, the court is bound to bear in mind Article 48'A of the Constitution, the Directive Principle which enioins that "the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and witdlife of the counff', and Adicle 51- a@) wiicn proctaims it to be the fundamental duty of every citizen ofTndia '"to protect and improve the naturul environment including forests,lak*,riversandwildlife,andtohavecompassionforliving creatures". When the court is catled uPon to give efiect to the Directive Principle and the fundamental duty, the court is not to shrug its shoulders and iay lhat priorities are a matter of policy and so itL a matier for the policy-making authority' The least that the coud may do is to examine whelher appropriate considerations are bome in mind and inelevancies excluded' In appropriate cases' the court may go further, but how much furthet must depend on the circumstances of the case. The court may always give necessary directions. However the court will not atiemPt to nicely balance relevant considerations- When the question involves the nice balancing of relevant considerations, the court may feel iustified in resignini itself to accePtance of the decision of the authority concerned. We may now proceed to examine the facts of the present case." (emphasis suPPlied) Approach of the Coutt 52. This Court has repeatedly reiterated the approach required to be adopted by the courts where the onus is on the violator to prove that there is no environmental degradation' There is a constitutional duty enioined upon every court to protect and preserve the environment. Courts will have to apply the principle ol parens patriae in light of the constitutional mandate enshrined in Articles '48-A,51-A,r1,14 and 19 of the Constitution of lndia' Therefore' the burden of proof lies on a developer or industrialist and also on the State in a given case to prove that there is no such degradation' 10 wp-8037 2012 NBK, J I Approach t t the Court: High degree of judicial scrutiny on any action oF lh ' ()overnment 65.lntellx'tr als Forum v. Stafe of A.P. Unte ectuals Forum v. State of A.P, (2t10';) 3 SCC 5491 : (SCC p. 575, para 76) " Public tr,ts : doctrine 76. The S rpreme Court of California, in Nationat Audubon Socrety v. S eerior Court of Alpine Country lNational Audubon Sociery v. S tperiorCourtof Alpine Country,33 Cali 4191 also known as Mono l.a l'e case lNational Audubon Society v. Superior C:ourt of Alpine Cic'u rtry, 33 Cali 419] summed up the substance of the doctrine. --h ) Court said: 'Thus the pl hlic trust is more than an affirmation of State power to use public I roperty for public purposes. lt is an affirmaflion of the duty of the State to protect the people's common heritage of streams, lal -,s, marshlands and tidelands, surrendering the right only in tholer rare cases when the abandonment of the right is consistenl v ith the purposes of the trust., This is arr articulation of the doctrine from the angle of the affirmative i uties of the State with regard to public trust. Formulate,l rom a negatory angle, the doctrine does not exacfly [Ed.: The \ ]rd between two asterisks has been emphasised in original.l pr< hibit lEd. : The word between two asterisks har; been emphasise d in original.l the alienation of the property hel,l as a public trust. lowever, when the State holds a resource that is: freety available for the use of the public, it provides for a high clegree of judicial scru iny on any action of the Government, no matter how consisfenf v ith the existing legislations, that attempts ta testrict such free ,se. To properly scrutinise such actionst of the Government the courts must make a distinction between the Government ) general obligation to act for the public benefit, and the speciat, nore demanding obtigation which it may h,ave as a trustee of c' dain public resou,/ces [Joseph L. Sax, ,,The public Trust Doctrt 1e in Natural Resource Law : Effective Judiciat lnterventio,l' Michigan Law Review, Vol.6g, No.3 (Jan. .1910) pp. 471-566). Acr ording to Prof. Sax, whose article on this sub,ect is considered : be an authority, three types of restrictions on governmenta authority are often thought to be imposert try the public trust c rctrine [ibid]: 1. the prop€,rt , subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, l,lrt t must be held available for use by the general public; 2. the properrt r may not be sold, even for fair cash equivalent; 7L wp 8037 2012 NB(, ]

3. the property must be maintained for particular types of use: ({ either traditional uses, or (r4 some uses Particular to that form of resources." (emphasis supplied) Forests constitute a national asset 6T.Amarnath Shrine, ln re [Amarnath Shrine, ln re, (2013) 3 SCC 244 : (SCC p. 260, para'19) "19. Where it is the bounden duty of the State to protect the above rights of the citizen in discharge of its constitutional obligation in the larger public interest, there the law also casts a duty upon the State to ensure due protection to the forests and environment of the country. Forests in lndia are an important part of the environment They constitute a national asset. We may, at this stage, refer to the concept of inter{enerational equity, which has been treated to be an integral part of Article 2l of the Constitution of lndia. The courts have applied this doctrine of sustainable development and precautionary principle to the cases where development is necessary but certainly not at the cost of environment. The courts are expected to drive a balance between the two. ln other words, the onerous duty lies upon the State to ensure protection of environment and forests on the one hand as well as to undertake necessary development with due regard to the fundamental rights and values." (emphasis suPPlied) Role of courts 69.H.P Bus-Sta nd Management & Development Authority lH'P' Bus' Stand Management & Development Authorily v. Centrel Empowered Committee,l2L21l 4 SCC 3091 : (SCC pp. 339'41, paras 56 & 58-60) "1.2. Role of coutTs in ensuring environmental Protection 56. ln a recent decision of this Cou't inBDAv' Sudhakar Hegcte IBDA v. Sudhakar Hegde, (2O201 {5 SCC 631 , this Court' speaking through one of us (D.Y. Chandrachud, J') held : (SCC pp' '112-13, paras 94-95) '94. The adversadat system is, by its nature, righ6 based' In the quest for iustice, it is not uncommon to postulate a winning side and a losing side. ln matters of the environment and development however, there is no trade-off between the two' The protection of the environment is an inherent comPonent of development and growth' 72 wp_8037 2012 NBK, J r Corker draws attention to the idea that the ttal protection goes beyond lawsuits. Where the State ,y bodies fail in theh duty to comply with the regulatory \'tr the protection of the environment, the court:;, acting brought by public-spirited individuats are c,ztted to ,ich actions. ... ... Profess, environt:e and statut( framework on actiotls invalidate, : 95. The prc'ection of the environment is premised not onl1, sn th. active role )f courts, but atso on robust institutional franeworks within whi( rt every stakehotder complies with ils duty to ensure sustainable development. A fremework of environmental governance committed to the rule of law requires a regime which has effecti e, eccountable and transparent institution::;. Equally important i: esponsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-m;,king- Environmental governance is founded on the rule of law and tmerges from the values of our Constitution. Vt/here the health of ih I environment is key to preseving the right to l,ife as a constitutiomlly recognised value under Adicte 21 ,rf the Constitutio, , proper structures for environmental decisian_naking find expre's. ion in the guarantee against arbitrary action and the amrmativ.t ctUty of fair treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution. Sustainable development is premised not merely on the redressal of the failut of democratic institutions in the protectian of the environm.,n but ensuring that such failures do not take place., ='

58. The LIN lP Report (supra) also goes on to note t UNEB "Environmer tal Rule of Law First Global Report,'(January Zttlgl, p. 213.1 : 'Courts arrd tribunals must be able to. grant meaningful legal remedies in >rder to resolve disputes and enforce environrnental laws. As stto,vn in Figure 5.12, legal remedies are the actions, such as fines, iail time, and injunctions, that courts and tribunals are empowered 'r order. For environmental laws to have their d,esired effect ancl to there to be adequate incentives for complianc.e with environmelrt., I laws, the remedies must both redress tthe past environment., I harm and deter future harm.' 59. ln its (ilobal Judiciat Handbook on Environnxental Constitutionz rtsrn, the UNEp has further noted I UNEp, Olobal Judicial Hanr'hook on Environmentat Constitutionalrsm (3rd Edn., 20191, p.7 .l : 'courts marte r 'rhey are essentiar to the rure of raw. without courts, laws can b,-" lisregarded, executive officials left unchecked, and ) t 13 wp 8037_2012 NSK,I people left without recourse. And the environment and the human connection to it can suffer. Judges stand in the breach.'

60. The above discussion puts into perspective our decision in the present appeals, through which we shall confirm the directions given by NGT in its impugned judgment lT.N. Godavarman Thirumutpad v. union of lndia,2016 SCC OnLine NGT '11961 . Ihe role of courts and tribunals cannot be overstated in ensuring that the "shield" of the "rute of law" can be used as a facilitative instrument in ensuring compliance with environmental regulations." (emphasis suPPlied)

72. Rather strangely, the application so filed by the plaintiff was rejected by the Revenue Authority only on l0-1-1975. The revision filed by him was allowed by remitting the matter to the Joint Collector. Suffice it is to state that despite the findings rendered, neither the Forest Department nor the Forest Settlement Officer was arrayed as a party to these proceedings before the Revenue Department. lt is also seen that the order of the Revenue Authority and the Revisional Authority were passed much after the declaration under Section 15 of the A.P. Forest Act, vesting the lands in the State by giving them the status of a reserved forest'

75. On appeal, the High Court, by giving adequate reasons reversed the said finding of the trial court qua the declaration, and confirmed the findings on injunction by dismissing the suit in toto' Ultimately, it was held that the suit property is forest land. The proceedings concluded under the A.P. Forest Act, though not specifically challenged; and that too without the proper and necessary parties, were found to be iust and Proper. Discussio', 84. We have already recorded the facts in detail' lt is a classic case where the officials of the State who are expected to protect and preserve the forests in discharge of their public duties clearly abdicated their role. We are at a loss to understand as to how the High Court could interfere by placing reliance upon evidence produced after the decree, at the instance of a party which succeeded along with the contesting defendant, particularly in the ----t \.i 74 wp ao31 2012 NBK, ] light of the finding that the land is forest land which has l:ecome part of r,-.r;e .red forest. 89. Accc,rCi rgly, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment I lohd. Abdul Qasr'm v. State .of Telangana, ;l0:ll SCC Online -'{; : 687] stands set aside by restoring the judgmernt [Mohd. Abdul Oag v. Stale of Telangana Appeal Srr'it No. 14S of i994, decided <,n ',:20-7 -2018 (TS)l rendered in AS No. 145 of 1994. We consider it r ppropriate to impose costs of Rs 5,00,000 each on the appellants, rnd respondents to be paid to the National Legal Services l\L :hority (Nalsa) within a period of two months from the date of this udgment. The appellant State is free to enquire into the lapses corn|litted by the officers in filing collusive affidavits before the compete 1l court and recover the same from those officers who are respons ble for facilitating and filing incorrect affidavits in the ongoing grrr ceedings. Contempt Case No. 624 ol ZO21 pending before the H gh Court is directed to be closed. tA No. 65196 of 2021 is dismiss,-.c All other pending applications stand closed.

6. Learned li, .,ernment Pleader further relies on thr: jrrdgment of Hon'ble Supre,rn, Court in Kunja Nagaiah v. State ol. l.elanganaz, wherein it is sr.z 1,, r I at paragraph 72 as follows:

72. Guided b ' the plethora of precedent decisions, it is seen that in the cases c'n land land in issue is reserved forest land. The reserve forest land v sts in Forest Department and designated authority of Forest Depar ment is custodian. The reserve forest land cannot be used/diverter for any purpose other than development of torest growth. Reve tLre authorities have no competence to dealwith.forest land and asis gn such land. Section 33 of Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli does rto' give free licence to revenue authorities and is subject to Act, 1927, Act, 1967 and Act, 19g0 and subject to overarching public interr:s and public trust doctrine. From long time possession vested in the Frorest Department. Thus, merely on the ground that after long lap: e of time power is exercised to cancel the assignment cannot enure to the benefit of petitioners as granting relief to petitioners rv< uld result in restoring another illegal decision. More '2 2019 SCC OnLiners 24,)l / 15 wp ao17 _2072 N8K, J so, when possession is not proved on contest with Forest Department. Permitting petitioners to cultivate land in reserved forest is against public interest.

7. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the material on record, it may be noted that it is the specific case of the petitioners that they belong to SC/ST and backward classes and their forefathers were owners of 200 acres in Nizamabad Village which was submerged in Dindi prolect. Petitioners rely on G.O.Ms.No.2771, dated 23.72.7960,which alloned 184 acres from the reserved forest area flor rehabilitation. Of this, Ac.164.20 guntas were assigned to the petitioners/forefathers at 5 acres each, with physical possession handed over on 13.06.1967. A 2\-year lease was granted for Kumri cultivation, and the petitioners have since cultivated cashew crops' considering the grievance of the petitioners in wP No. 584 of 1982 that pattas were not granted, this Court disposed of the writ petition on Og.O6.LgB7, directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation. Petitioners claimed entitlement to pattas for Ac.764.20 guntas as rehabilitation for their submerged lands, howevet it is to be noted that it is the specific stand ofthe respondents, based on records, that the subject land is part of Amrabad Reserve Forest, declared under G.O.Ms.No.2771, dated 23'72.'1,960, and vested in the Forest Department, and that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction over the forest land to assign to the petitioners. Further; it is the specific stand of the respondents that the land was leased to the petitioners' forefathers for 20 years for Kumri cultivation, however no pattas were issued. It may be noted that Dasari Nagaiah and others filed wP No.B523 L6 wp_8037 2012 NB(, l of 2008, seel:in. this Court d sp directing ttrrt I petitioners. !-lr e submitted a F.e,p STs, 18 SCs, .l) lessees. As per occupation belr) dwellers). T'r:

07.09.200t] st:rt pending the tvr submitted a Fep was availahle [or pattas based on an application dated 18.)2.2008, and rsed of the writ petition by order darecl 11.06.2008 :r;pondents to consider the representation of the rr:)afte4 the Revenue Divisional Office4 N irgarkurnool, r rt dated 25.08.2008 identifying 42 orig nal lessees [14 iCs), with 24 new claimants unrelated to the original :he Forest Rights Act,2006, foresi, ri1:;hts require ': 13.1,2.2005 ISTsJ or for 75 years fother traditional :lollectoC Mahabubnagar; issued proceedings on rrg that the claims would be processed urrder the Act, ir: petition, and thereafter the 'fahsildac Amrabad rrt dated 20.04.2012 stating that no go,zernment land ;r ssignment.

8. At this jun petitioners on r,. of the petitione Department, and petitioners for ;r on the petitioner revenue auth c,r it alone grantin6; p (supra), and thr:r department thirt I the submerged la Constitutionai rr:t public trust dc,(tl national asset, ,t tr ;rure, it may be noted that the reliance placed by the -r,Ms.No.2771 dated23.12j,960 does not,rid the case :,, as forest land vests exclusively with the Forest r,'ren assuming that the land was given on lease to the r)ng period, the same does not bestou, ;rn1. legal right s to claim pattas for the said land, and iurther the ('s cannot exercise jurisdiction over fc,re st land, let rttas, as per the law laid down in Kunia Nagaiah riore petitioners cannot seek pattas frorn the revenue :r:s no jurisdiction over forest lands, to r:ompensate for r:Ls under Dindi project. It is to be noted that it is the rdate underArticles 48-A and 51-A[gJ, alorrg with the ine, that obligates the State to pr.otect frrrests as a ,rny diversion or alienation of florest land br private L7 wp.8037 ]O12 NBK,I purposes is impermissible, as emphasized in Mohd. Abdul Qasim (supra) and Intellectuals Forum (supra). In that view ofthe matte4, this Court does not find any legally tenable grounds to issue a writ of mandamus as sought foc and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed' g. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs' Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// SD/. P. H. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J One CC to SRI K.VENUtilADHAV, Advocate' I One CC to SRI AKA VENKATARAMANA, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] P 4 Two CD CoPies. BSK SS ,#, _-......_... I HIGH COI IRT DATED: lttt lO3t2O2S ORDER WP.No.803 | of 2012 -=a tBt . sr,i; ,.-- \ o q 3 2t ttAY ;'l2l (( i cj. t D5 .sr'r.TC 1r; a .// 2' i) 2 .DISMISSIN( i THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C OSTS 4 t -1- l ,