Disposed

Gujju Babu Rao, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Dec 2024WP/9128/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking mandamus against interference with cultivation of forest land pending settlement of Forest Rights Act claims. Court held decisions must be communicated to claimants and directed respondents to pass appropriate orders after hearing petitioners.

What the court decided

AI extract

Gujju Babu Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010561312015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3330]

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 9128/2015

¶9

Between:

¶10

Gujju Babu Rao and others

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

State of Andhra Pradesh and others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶16

1.K S MURTHY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶19

2.GP FOR FORESTS (AP)

¶20

3.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶21

4.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 9128 of 2015

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶27

“…to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of Respondents 2 to 8 in interfering with the enjoyment or cultivation of lands by the petitioners and initiating steps to evict them from lands falling under Compartment 148 of Bedadanole Forest block of Eluru Forest Division coming under the jurisdiction of Lankalapalli VSS, though their claims are yet to be finally settled by appropriate authority is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct Respondent No.3 to complete the process of verification and settlement of claims speedily as per the provisions of the Act and make it clear that till the final decision is taken and communicated to each of the petitioners they cannot be threatened or dispossessed from the land being cultivated by them in any manner…”

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶29

The petitioners along with others, submitted claims for forest land, which they have been cultivating, to the Forest Rights Committees and the Gram Sabha. After reviewing their claims, the Gram Sabha forwarded them to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee (SDLC) along with its recommendations, through resolutions dated 13.03.2008 and 31.07.2008. However, the SDLC’s decision on these

¶30

¶31

claims was never formally communicated to the petitioners or to the Forest Rights Committee.

¶32

The petitioners are entitled to receive a written communication about the decision on their claims. Without the same, they cannot file an appeal or seek other legal remedies. Meanwhile, the petitioners are continuing cultivating the land, mainly growing cotton. However, the staff of respondents 4 and 5 with the local police, have filed complaints against the petitioners for occupying the land, which they are claiming under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (RoFR Act).

¶33

It is further asserted in the affidavit that the petitioners have been cultivating the subject lands since 1991. The District Collector, who is chairman of the Division Level Committee, has ordered a survey to finalize the claims of the tribal people and the matter is under consideration following the due process of settlement as per the provisions of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (RoFR Act).

¶34

The learned Designated Senior Counsel, Sri K.S.Murthy, appearing for the petitioners, would submit that Section 4(5) of the RoFR Act, provides that except as otherwise provided, no member of a forest dwelling scheduled tribe or other traditional forest dweller shall be evicted or removed from forest land under his occupation till the recognition and verification procedure is complete. He further contends that, despite the recognition and verification procedure not being

¶35

¶36

completed and no order having been passed, the respondents are initiating steps to evict the petitioners from the subject lands, which amounts to violation of Articles 3, 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶37

The 4^th respondent/District Forest Officer has filed counter, wherein it is stated in para 8 that the State Government has issued instructions to re-examine the rejected claims and the decision is yet to be taken by the Grama Sabha, Sub-Division Level Committee and Division Level Committee. The said counter is filed in the year 2016 and there are no latest instructions from the respondents.

¶38

Rule 12(3)(a) of the Scheduled Tribes and other traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Amendment Rules, 2012 states that if the Gram Sabha rejects or modifies a claim, or if the Sub-Division Level Committee recommends rejecting or modifying a claim to the Division Level Committee, the decision or recommendation must be communicated to the claimant personally. This allows the claimant to file a petition to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee or Division Level Committee as the case may be, within a period of sixty days, which can be extended by an additional period of thirty days, if the committee decided to do so.

¶39

This Court directs the respondents to communicate any order passed by the Divisional Level Committee to the petitioners. If no such

¶40

¶41

orders have been passed, the respondents are required to issue appropriate orders basing on the decision of the Grama Sabha and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioners.

¶42