Allowed

Neram Lakshmamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Feb 2024WP/14454/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that rejection orders issued under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, without affording the claimants notice or an opportunity of hearing, violate principles of natural justice. The impugned rejection notices were set aside, and the respondents were directed to issue fresh notices, conduct an enquiry with a hearing, and decide the claims within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Rejection notices set aside; respondents directed to issue fresh notices, conduct enquiry with hearing, and decide claims within four weeks.

Neram Lakshmamma, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 14454 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

1. Neram Lakshmamma, W/o.Chinnayya, Age 60 years, Kondakammara (ST),

¶9

1. Boyina GajaLakshmi, W/o. Yerram Reddy, Age 40 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶10

1. Ilia Kanthamma, W/o. Satyanarayana, Age 45 years, Konda Kammara(ST),

¶11

1. Neram Babu Rao, S/o.Swamy, Age 50 years, Konda Kammara(ST),

¶12

1. Konutula Lakshmamma, W/o.Kommayya, Age 65 years, Konda Kammara(ST),

¶13

1. Neram Gandhi, S/o. Pandayya, Age 28 years, Konda Kammara(ST),

¶14

1. Konutula Krishna, S/o.Kommayya, Age 50 years, Konda Kammara(ST),

¶15

1. Badigumta Sobhan Reddy, S/o.Latchireddy, Age 65 years, Konda Reddy(ST),

¶16

1. Badigumta Raja Reddy, S/o.Tamma Rao, Age 34 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶17

lO) Badigunta Mohan Reddy, S/o.Latchireddy, Age 31 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶18

1. Badigumta Jeeyapureddy, S/o. Mathi Reddy, Age 30 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶19

1. Valamuri Veeramma, D/o. Malli Reddy, Age 60 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶20

1. Badigumta Bhaskar Reddy, H/o.Chinnammi, Age 55 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶21

1. Talluri Posi Reddy, S/o.Chinna Reddy, Age 32 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶22

1. Talluri Bhadramma, W/o. Chinna Reddy, Age 55 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶23

1. Pamuleti Krishna Reddy, S/o,Mukka Reddy, Age 30 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶24

'*^7) Badigumta Akkamma, D/o.Linga Reddy, Age 65 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶25

1. Badigumta Bhadramma, D/o.Linga Reddy, Age 60 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶26

1. Badigumta Chinnabbaireddy, S/o.Yeraka Reddy, Age 45 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶27

1. Tailuri Abbulu Reddy, S/o. Reddiyya, Age BlYears, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶28

1. Badigumta Narayana Reddy, S/o.Myna Reddy, Age 50 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶29

1. Badigumta Myana Reddy, S/o.Yerakareddy, Age 50 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶30

1. Tailuri Reddiyya, S/o.Nadipireddy, Age 60 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶31

1. Tailuri Latchireddy, S/o.Reddiyya, Age 38 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶32

1. Kulla Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o.Rami Reddy, Age 45 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶33

1. Kulla Pedaabbayi Reddy, S/o. Mangi Reddy, Age 31 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶34

1. Kulla Venkata Reddy, S/o.Rami Reddy, Age 58 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶35

1. Tailuri Subba Lakshmi, D/o.Chinna Reddy, Age 33 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶36

1. Badigumta China Somireddy, S/o.China Reddy, Age 42 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶37

1. Badigumta Abbayi Reddy, S/o.Tammi Reddy, Age 36 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶38

1. Tailuri Mangayamma, D/o.Veerabhadra Reddy, Age 55 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶39

1. Tailuri Ganesh Reddy, S/o.Ramireddy, Age 36 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶40

1. Tailuri Krishna Reddy, S/o.Ramireddy, Age 29 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶41

1. Chedala China Reddy, S/o.Latchireddy, Age 62 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶42

1. Neram Yesu, S/o.China Chinnayya, Age 25 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶43

1. Konutula Seethamma, W/o.Veeraswamy, Age 60 Years, Konda Kammara (ST),

¶44

1. Maligela Swamy, S/o.Bapi Raju, Age 36 Years, Konda Kammara (ST),

¶45

1. Konutula Nageswara Rao, S/o.Appa.,rao. Age 40 Years, Konda Kammara (ST),

¶46

1. Neram Swamy, S/o.Kannayya, Age 50 Years, Konda Kammara (ST),

¶47

1. Badigunta Pedasomireddy, S/o.Gangireddy, Age 60 Years, Konda Reddy(ST),

¶48

1. Paloji Seetha Ramudu, S/o.Pentayya, Age 50 Years, Konda Kammara (ST),'

¶49

1. Talluri Durga, W/o.Rammurthi Reddy, Age 30 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶50

1. Chiduguri Ramulamma,W/o.Linga Reddy, Age 62 Years, Konda Reddy(ST),

¶51

1. Chiduguri Ogireddy, S/o.Linga Reddy, Age 52 Years, Konda Reddy(ST),

¶52

1. Chiduguri Surya Kantham, W/o.Prasada Reddy, Age 33 Years, Konda Reddy(ST),

¶53

1. Chiduguri Kanthamma, D/o.Ogireddy, Age 33 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶54

1. Talluri Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.Chinna Reddy, Age 32 Years, Konda Reddy(ST),

¶55

1. Kulla Chellamma, W/o.Latchi Reddy, Age 50 Years, Konda Reddy(ST),

¶56

1. Kulla Subba Lakshmi, W/o.Ramireddy, Age 31 Years, Konda Reddy(ST),

¶57

1. Talluri Semamma, W/o.Mutyala Reddy, Age 60 Years, Konda Reddy(ST),

¶58

1. Badigunta Jogamma, W/o.Tammi Reddy, Age 65 Years, Konda Reddy(ST),

¶59

1. Badigunta Kanthamma, W/o.Venkata Reddy Age 38 Years, Konda Reddy(ST),

¶60

1. Badigunta Venkata Reddy, S/o.Tamma Rao, Age 42 Years, Konda Reddy (ST),

¶61

All are R/o Talluru (BPO), H/o. Kondamodalu Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District (via) POLAVARAM -534335 ^

¶62

Petitioners

¶63

AND

¶64

The state of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by it^^principal Secretary, Tribal welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶65

The Member, Convener, District Level Committee Project Officer, I.T. D.A., Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District.

¶66

The Chair Person D.L.C and The District Collector, . East Godavari District, Kakinada.

¶67

Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs,

¶68

Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. Respondents

¶69

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the rejection orders/ notices Passed/issued by the 2nd respondent vide Ref. R.O. F.R/47/2012 dated 2015 on behalf of the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, violative of the principles of Natural justice and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Act, 2006 and the Rules 2007, set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents not to dislodge the petitioners from their habitation of land in question, v

¶70

t.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 18007 OF 2016)

¶71

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 suspend the rejection orders/ notices passed/issued by the 2nd respondent vide Ref. R.O.F.R/47/2012 dated -2015 on behalf of the 3rd respondent and direct the respondents not to dislodge the petitioners from their habitation of land in question pending disposal the above writ petitio n.

¶72

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. SIMHACHALAM BARAPAREDDY

¶73

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 : GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶74

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶75

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶76

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶77

APHCO10257762016 :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [ FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF 3333 FEBRUARY ] TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT

¶78

the honourable smt justice v.sujatha

¶79

WRIT PETITION NO: 14454 OF 2016

¶80

Between:

¶81

neram lakshmamma, and others

¶82

...PETITIONER(S)

¶83

AND

¶84

the state of ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL AND OTHERS .. .RESPONDENT(S)

¶85

The Court made the following

ORDER

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article^226ofthe

¶90

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶91

“...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly^{oneinthenatureof} writ of mandamus declaring the rejection orders/ notices^{Passed/issued} by the 2™^ respondent vide Ref. R.O.F.R.47/2012 dated -20 J 5 on behalf of the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, violative of the principles of natural justice and^{violativeof fundamental} rights guaranteed under the constitution of India and^contrary to the provisions of the Act, 2006 and the Rules, 2007 set^{asidethesameand} consequently direct the respondents not to dislodge^{thepetitionersfrom} their habitation of land in question ”

¶92

The case of the petitioners is that they are permanent^residentsof Talluru, hamlet of Kondamodalu Grama Panchayat of Devipatnam Mandal, and they belong to Konda Kammara Scheduled^Tribesandthe said Talluru Village is formed in the valley abutting^{riverGodavariin} Eastern Ghats. The petitioners and their ancestors^{haveoccupiedsmall} extents of forest lands for Kondapodu cultivation and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same by doing Kondapodu cultivation till date. The Thalluru Village falls in the ‘Papikondalu^{NationalPark’,as} such, the Forest officials have objected the petitioners^{fromcultivating} the said land though that is the only source of their^livelihood. 3. While the matter being so, 149 eligible tribes of the^petitioners village have submitted applications claiming for individual^{forestrightsm} Phase-1 under Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest^Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (for brevity^{‘theAct’).Thereafter,}

¶93

¶94

the authorities visited their habitation and conducted GPS survey of all their lands and prepared maps. The petitioners have requested the concerned Forest authorities to .ssue titles for Forest land, wh.ch is under their occupation, on several occasions, but there is no proper response from them. However, to their utter surprise. Village Revenue Assistant of Kondamodalu served notices/orders m Ref.R.O.F.R./47/2012, dated 22.01.2016 under Section 12 (A) (3) of ROFR Act, 2006, rejecting to issue patta to the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition. 4. While ordering notice before admission on 28.4.2016, this Court passed the interim order: There shall be stay of dispossession fror a period of eight weeks. On 13.7.2016, the Stay was extended further for a period of eight weeks. However, it was not extended subsequently. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on perusal of the notice, it appears that though it is named as a notice, in fact, it is a rejection order, wherein the Chairperson, D.L.C., Rampachodavaram has ‘Rejected’ the claim of the petitioners to grant pattas in their favour for the land, which is in their possession, admittedly such rejection is without any due notice.

¶95

¶96

However, learned Government Pleader for Soeial Welfare produced a copy of instructions of the Project Officer, ITDA, Rampachodavaram dated 17.2.2024, wherein it is stated that, survey was conducted for 110 individual claims for grant of individual Forest Rights as per their eligibility under the Act, 2006 and maps were also prepared and sent to the Gram Sabha for its classification. The SDLC, Rampachodavaram^has directed the GIS Associate, RoFR Cell of ITDA, Rampachodavaram to verify the data technically with Carto-sat imaginary data as^to whether the land was cultivated before the cut-off date i.e., 13.12.2005 under the Act, 2006 or not and after due enquiry, the District Level Committee, Kakinada, accepted 26 claims and found cultivated before cut-off date

¶97

i.e.. 13.12.2005 and issued title deeds to their respective lands by rejecting 81 claims as the claimed lands fell under the unreserved forest and the remaining 3 claims were rejected as the claimants failed to produce documentary evidence to prove their occupancy. However, the rejected claimants were informed to file appeal before^{theDistrictLevel} Committee, Kakinada within a period of 60 days which shall be extendable to a period of 30 days at its discretion. But, the rejected claimants did not utilize the appeal provision within the stipulated time and directly approached this Court.

¶98

A perusal of the instructions would disclose that under Section 12 (A) (3) of the Act, 2006, the District Level Committee, Kakinada has passed resolution by accepting 26 claims to issue title deeds. The

¶99

¶100

relevant provision for recognition of and vesting of forest irghts in forest dwelling scheduled tribes is Section 4 of the Act, 2006, which reads as under;

¶101

Recognition of, and vesting of forest rights in forest yelling Scheduled Trihes and other traditional forest dwellers.-

¶102

dwellers.-

¶103

(1) CeJZr"""thf> time, h anythingthe provisionscontained inofany otherZ lawAct, forthe Central Government hereby recognises and vests forest rights in~i

¶104

in States where(a)theythe forestare declareddwelling Scheduled‘ ^ Tribes in States or areas as Scheduled Tribes i forest rights mentioned in section 3; in respect of all

¶105

(3) /ores, relation to any State or Union tnrrit aditional forest^dwellers in Tribes or tribal or otter ,radit,onal forest dwellers had occupied forest land before the 13th day of December, 2005.

¶106

Undisputedly, the said rejection orders dated 22.1.2016 are without any reason or without affording any opportunity to the petitioners and though, it i IS named as‘notice’, it is a rejection order,

¶107

Admittedly, it can be understood that without even issuing any notice to the petitioner, the respondents have conducted an enquiry behind the petitioners and have come to a conclusion that 149 petitioners are not entitled for the patta under Forest Rights as they were not cultivating the said land before the cut-off date i.e. 13.12.2005. Though the impugned notice i .s termed as ‘Notice’, is infact a rejection order which ISi passed without conducting any enquiry in the presence of

¶108

¶109

the petitioners and also without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In view of the same, the impugned notices are^liableto be set aside.

¶110

Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the notices dated 22.01.2016. However, the respondents are directed to issue fresh notices to the petitioners and thereafter directed to conduct enquiry as to whether the petitioners are in occupation of the lands in which they claimed right, by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners herein and thereafter decided as to whether the petitioners^areentitled for issuance of title deeds for the said Forest land under RoFR Act, 2006 or not. The said process shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to interfere into the possession of the petitioners, if at all they are in possession as on today. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶111

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶112

Sd/- M. PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal, Secretary, Tribal welfare Department,^{StateofAndhra} Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶117

The Member, Convener, District Level Committee,, Project Officer,

¶118

I.T.D.A., Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District.

¶119

¶120

The Chair Person D.L.C. and The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada.

¶121

The Secretary,, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Union of India, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶122

One CC to SRI. SIMHACHALAM BARAPAREDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶123

One CC to SRI JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) [OPUC]

¶124

Two CCS to GP for SOCIAL WELFARE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

¶125

Three CD Copies

Madhu

HIGH COURT

DATED:23/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.14454of 2016

si
CJ«
//.X rni I
2 9 JUN 202'!
no fe.
Currani Secticn ^ r?"
'Sni ^ c 'rr;

¶133

ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Neram Lakshmamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neram Lakshmamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Saraswathi College of Education, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Repalle Christian College of Education Vs the State of Ap

Sri Saraswathi B.Ed College Vs the State of Ap

Chandiwala Mounika Punit Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal

Rev Fr. Pascaali meka parish priest Vs Education School

Varre Srinivasa Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh