Disposed

Kotagiri Venugopal Rao, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC12 Feb 2009WP/15894/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the refusal of a Sub-Registrar to register sale deeds of land proposed as reserve forest. The court held that prohibitions under the repealed Forest Act and the Forest Conservation Act remain operative until a final notification deletes the land cover and Central Government clearance is obtained. The writ was disposed of without granting relief.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; no order as to costs; petitioners to pursue further remedies for final notification or central clearance.

Kotagiri Venugopal Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY +WRIT PETITION NO.15894 0F 2008

¶2

% 12.02.2009

¶3

# Between:

¶4

Kotagiri Venugopal Rao and others

¶5

… Petitioners

¶6

A N D

¶7

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Dept., Revenue (Stamps and Registration), Rep by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

! COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: Mr. VENKATESHWARLU POSANI

¶10

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: G.P. for Revenue

¶11

< Gist:

¶12

> Head Note:

¶13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶14

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶15

PRESENT

¶16

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15894 of 2008

¶17

Between:

¶18

1 Kotagiri Venugopal Rao, s/o. Venkateswara Rao, R/o. 6-105, Samata Nagar, Nuzvid, Krishna District. 2 Kanumuri Suryanarayana Raju, S/o. Venkata Suryanarayana Raju,

¶19

R/o. Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 Kanumuri Bhaskara Raju, S/o.Suryanarayana Raju, R/o. Eluru, West Godavari District. 4 Samanthapudi Raja Ramesh, S/o. Basavaraju, R/o. Eluru, West Godavari District. 5 Pothuneni Nageswara Rao, S/o. Raja Rao, R/o. Bapulapadu Village and Mandal, Krishna District. 6 Kanumuri Subba Lakshmi, W/o. Venkata Krishnam Raju, R/o. Rayalam Village and Bhimavaram mandal, West Godavari District. 7 Kanumuri Venkata Krishnam Raju, S/o. Sambasiva Raju, R/o. Rayalam Village and Bhimavaram mandal, West Godavari District. 8 Kanumuri Krishna Kumari, W/o. Prasad, R/o. Bapulapadu Village and Mandal, Krishna District. 9 Kanumuri Sri Lakshmi Siriha, W/o. Sivaram Raju, R/o. Bapulapadu Village and Mandal, Krishna District. 10 Kanumuri Siva Rama Raju, S/o. Surya Narayana Raju, R/o. Bapulapadu Village and Mandal, Krishna District. 11 Kanumuri Sri Lakshmi Sirisha, W/o. Bhaskara Raju, R/o. Hanuman Junction, Bapulipudi Mandal, Krishna District. 12 Kanumuri Lakshmi Uma Kathyayani, W/o. Subba Raju, R/o. Bapulapadu Village and Mandal, Krishna District. 13 Saripalli Sri Venkata Naga Balasubba Raju, S/o. Suryanarayana Raju, R/o. Tadinada Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District. 14 Lanka Shiva Prasad Rao, S/o. Venugopala Rao, R/o. D.No. 5-122/2 of Bapulapadu Village and Mandal, Krishna District. 15 Kanumuri Prasad, S/o.. Suryanarayan Raju,

¶20

R/o. Eluru Road, Hanuman Junction, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District. 16 Santhapudi Lavanya, W/o. Raja Ramesh, R/o. Eluru Road, Hanuman Junction, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District. 17 Gadiraju Srinivasa Raju, S/o. Narasimha Raju, R/o. Relangi Village, Iragavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. 18 Katikaneni Srinivasa Jagannadha Rao, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, R/o. Pascha Nagaram Village, Lingapalli Mandal, West Godavari District. 19 Konduri Srivalli, W/o. Sri Hari Babu, R/o. D.No. 24C-2-25, Manchiniru Thota, Fathebada, Eluru, West Godavari District. 20 Pichchuka Subba Lakshmi, W/o. Balachendhramouli, R/o. 23B-6-27, Kappagantulavari Veedhi, Eluru, West Godavari District. 21 Pichchuka Balachendhramouli, S/o. Ganapathi, R/o. 23B-6-27, Kappagantulavari Veedhi, Eluru, West Godavari District. 22 Maddala Jaya Vijaya Kumar, S/o. Ellaiah, Chintalpalli Village and Mandal, West Godavari District. 23 Maddala Mykhel Vara Kumar, S/o. Ellaiah, Chintalpalli Village and Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶21

..... PETITIONERS

¶22

AND

¶23

1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Dept., of Revenue (Stamps and Registration), Rep by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶24

2 The Sub Registrar, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District. 3 The Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru Division, Eluru, West Godavari District.

¶25

.....RESPONDENTS

¶26

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not registering our land in Sy.No. 537/2, 3 and 4 of Bhogolu Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District basing on the letter in Rc.No. 466/64-50, dated 28-9-2007 of the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondent herein to receive and register the documents pertaining to lands of the petitioners in Sy.No. 537/2, 3 and 4 of Bhogolu Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioners :MR.VENKATESWARLU POSANI

¶28

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE

¶29

The Court made the following :

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This Writ Petition is filed with a prayer to declare the action of the second respondent in not registering the documents presented in relation to the lands in survey Nos.537/2, 3 and 4 of Bhogulu Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District, on the basis of a letter, dated 28.09.2007, issued by the third respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. A consequential direction is sought against the first respondent to receive and register the documents pertaining to the said lands.

¶32

The Government of A.P. issued a notification dated 29.01.1970, under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for short “the Act”), proposing to notify an extent of 4,100 acres of land as ‘Reserve Forest’. Objections were invited from various quarters. The predecessors in title of the petitioners claimed rights of ownership over an extent of about 350 acres of land in survey Nos.537/2, 3 and 4 of Bhogolu Village. Their claims were examined and the Forest Settlement Officer (FSO), Nellore, passed an order, dated 18.12.1984, holding that the lands claimed by the petitioners are patta lands and that they cannot be declared as ‘reserve forest’. He further directed that since the land is covered by the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short ‘the F.C.Act’), necessary steps need to be taken with the Central Government, for deletion of the same from the proposed forest block

¶33

Sri Inuganti Ramakrishna Ranga Rao and 11 others filed W.P.No.11419 of 2006, before this Court, with a prayer to direct the Government of A.P. to make an application to the Government of India for exclusion of 342.50 acres of land situated at Bhogolu Village, from the purview of the F.C. Act. The writ petition was allowed through order, dated 19.01.2009. The petitioners claim to have purchased different extents of land in the said survey numbers, in the recent past. Their grievance is that the documents presented by them before the SubRegistrar, Eluru, the second respondent, are not being processed, or

¶34

entertained.

¶35

The petitioner contends that once the FSO is of the view that the land cannot be included under the reserve forest, the restrictions imposed under the A.P. Forest Act and the Forest Conservative Act do not apply and there is no justification for the second respondent in not receiving and passing the documents in relation to the land.

¶36

The respondents filed counter-affidavit. The history in relation to the land, ever since it was proposed to be notified as reserved forest, is traced. It is submitted that the FSO himself took the view that though the land is held by way of private patta, it is forest and covered by the provisions of the F.C. Act and unless and until a permission of the Central Government is accorded, no transaction can take place in respect of the land. It is also their case that the final notification under Section 15 of the Act is yet to be issued and the prohibition contained under Section 7 of the Act, would operate.

¶37

Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that not only the FSO declared the lands to be outside the purview of the notification, but also this Court held in its judgment in W.P.No.11419 of 2006 that without the necessity of any further proceedings, the lands can be enjoyed by the pattadar. He submits that the sole basis for the third respondent in addressing the letter, dated 28.09.2007, to the second respondent was pendency of W.P.No.11419 of 2006 and once that has ended in favour of the petitioners, there is no impediment for the second respondent to register the documents.

¶38

Learned Government Pleader for Forests submits that the view expressed by the FSO was only limited to the nature of the land, namely whether it is patta land or Government land; so far as the character of the land is concerned, it was categorically held that, being a forest land, the provisions of F.C. Act apply. She further contends that once the land was subject matter of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, the prohibition contained under Section 7 of the Act operates and the question of the petitioners purchasing the land, would arise only,

¶39

when a notification under Section 15 of the Act is issued, taking the land from the purview of the proposals.

¶40

The petitioners do not deny the fact that the land admeasuring an extent of 342.50 acres was notified under Section 4 of the Act for the purpose of declaring it as ‘reserve forest’. This was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act. The FSO was appointed to determine the claims of various individuals vis-à-vis notified lands. On verification of the record, and on hearing the concerned parties, the FSO passed an order, 18.12.1984 holding that the land of 342.50 acres in survey Nos.537/2, 3 and 4 of Bhogolu Village, does not belong to the Government. That, however, does not bring an end to the controversy. At the end of the order, the FSO made the following observations:

¶41

“As this area in question attracts the provision of the Forest Conservation Act 1980 of government of India prior orders of the central Government have to be obtained for eliminating any land from the proposed block. Since the land in question with got subdivided as per the entries in the land register maintained early on the year 1969 (i.e. 1-1-1969) and that too prior to the notification of this block under Section 4 of the A.P.Forest Act and since the claim of the petitioners is established beyond doubt during the enquiry conducted by the Forest Settlement Officer, Nellore necessary orders of the central government may be obtained and communicated for eliminating the patta lands over an extent of 342.50 Acs. or 138.60 Hec. from the forest block by way of an award as shown in the sketch enclosed.”

¶42

Therefore, it becomes necessary for the parties to wait, for the clearance by the Central Government.

¶43

As a matter of fact, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11419 of 2006 with a specific prayer to direct the State Government to make an application to the Central Government seeking approval for exclusion of 342.50 acres of the land in survey Nos.537/2, 3 and 4 of Bhogolu Village. The writ petition was allowed as prayed for through judgment dated 19.01.2009. Obviously, the petitioner has to wait, till the State Government makes recommendation for exclusion of the land with the Central Government, and the latter accords such permission. Inasmuch as the writ petition is

¶44

allowed, the necessary steps need to be taken to get the directions implemented.

¶45

Another aspect of the matter is that the proceedings initiated under the Act in respect of the land, did not reach finality. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were issued and enquiry was held under Section 10 of the Act. This, in turn, must lead to final notification under Section 15 of the Act. In such a notification, either the entire area notified under Section 4 of the Act, can be declared as reserved forest, or a specific part, of it or part or whole of it may be deleted. Till such an eventuality, the prohibition contained under Section 7 of the Act operates, which reads as under:

¶46

“Bar of accrual of forest rights and prohibition of

¶47

clearings:-

¶48

(1) During the interval between the publication of a notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette under Section 4 and the date fixed by the notification under Section 15-

¶49

(a) no right shall be acquired by any person in or over the land included in the notification under Section 4 except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the Government or any person in whom such right was vested before the publication of the notification under Section 4;

¶50

(b) no new house shall be built or plantation formed, no fresh clearing for cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made, on such land and no trees shall be cut from such land for the purpose of trade or manufacture:

¶51

Provided that nothing shall prohibit the doing of any act specified in this clause with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer; and

¶52

(c) no person shall set fire or kindle or leave burning any fire in such manner as to endanger or damage such land or forest produce.

¶53

(2) No patta in such land shall be granted by or on behalf of the Government.”

¶54

Admittedly no notification under Section 15 of the Act was issued, nor the Central Government had accorded its permission under the F.C. Act, the second respondent cannot be expected to register the sale deeds. The petitioners have to await the steps mentioned above.

¶55

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the

¶56

petitioners to prosecute further remedies as regards issuance of final notification, or for orders from the Central Government exempting the land from the provisions of the F.C. Act, as per law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶58

Dated:12.02.2009 GJ L.R. Copy to be marked.

Kotagiri Venugopal Rao, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotagiri Venugopal Rao, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fareed Hussain Khan, Vs The District Collector

Pongupati Venkata Saraswathi Vs Tahsildar

Smt. Jakata Danamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

B. Prabhakar Sharma, Vs District Collector

V. Rama Chandra Rao Vs The Joint Collector - II

G.Jaya Lakshmi, Vs The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District