Disposed

B Jayasimha Naidu v. The Divisional Forest Officer

Telangana HC11 Mar 2011WP/6020/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the forest department's attempt to declare a bore well illegal as it was sunk in reserve forest. The court observed the petitioner sunk the well in forest land and denied a blanket restraining order but directed the officer to consider permission within two weeks if village vegetation is unaffected.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to submit representation for permission within two weeks; writ petition disposed of; interim relief deemed infructuous.

B Jayasimha Naidu Vs The Divisional Forest… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6020 of 2011

¶2

Date:11.03.2011

¶3

Between:

¶4

B.Jayasimha Naidu

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

AND

¶7

The Divisional Forest Officer, Anantapur, Anantapur District and another

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Mohan Rami Reddy

¶10

Counsel for Respondents: GP for Forests

¶11

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in attempting to remove the bore well sunk by the petitioner for irrigating his patta lands situated in Survey Nos.502-A, 502-B, 502-A, 502-B, 502-C, 502-D, 509, 512-A, 512-B, 512-C and 512-D, admeasuring Acs.9.14 cents of Yellutla Village, Putlur Mandal, Anantapur District as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

I have heard Sri K.Mohan Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Forests, representing the respondents.

¶14

It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he owns agricultural land admeasuring Acs.9.14 cents in various survey numbers referred to above, that he has raised banana plantation in the said land with the aid of a bore well sunk in his patta land and that as the said bore well has got dried up, on the advice of a Geologist, he has sunk the bore well at a place which ultimately turned out to be a part of the reserve forest. His grievance is that the respondents have been preventing him from drawing water from the said bore well.

¶15

At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though technically the bore well is a part of the reserve forest, it is located at the edge of the forest adjacent to a kacha road and that existence of the bore well and drawing water therefrom does not in any manner affect the reserve forest.

¶16

The learned Government Pleader, opposing the above submission, contended that on the petitioner’s own showing he has dug the bore well over the land, which is part of a reserve forest and therefore, he is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition.

¶17

On the admitted facts of the case, the petitioner has sunk the bore well over the land in reserve forest. Therefore, no mandamus can be issued to the respondents restraining them from interfering with the petitioner’s operation of bore well. However, the photographs filed by the petitioner would show that the bore well is situated on the margin of a kacha road, where there is no vegetation. The petitioner ought to have approached the respondents for permission before sinking the bore well.

¶18

However, inasmuch as the bore well was already sunk by obviously spending considerable amount, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.1 for permission to operate the bore well. If such representation is received by respondent No.1 within a period of two weeks from today, he shall consider the same in accordance with the provisions of the applicable laws and if he finds that the operation of bore well will not affect the preservation of reserve forest, he may consider granting such permission to the petitioner without violating the provisions of the applicable laws.

¶19

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.7504 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

11^th March, 2011 Note: Issue CC in four days. (b/o)

¶21

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶22

VGB

B Jayasimha Naidu v. The Divisional Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Jayasimha Naidu v. The Divisional Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaya Bhaskara Cooperative Collective Farming Vs The District Collector (Co-operation)

Kamineni Jayasri, Vs The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Yelamanchili Surya Pushpavathi Vs The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies

M/s. Dowpati Chinnaiah and Sons, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Gangadhar Goud Vs Chikkela Laxman

D. Ramachandrudu Vs The Joint Collector