Disposed

M. Susheela, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal

Telangana HC27 Aug 2015WP/36749/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that Revenue and Forest Departments must conduct joint surveys to resolve land disputes affecting citizens. Directed District Collector to hold joint survey for dispute over land assigned to petitioners. Directed officials to hold joint meeting within four months to find lasting solution. Disposed of writ petition and connected cases as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Directed District Collector to order joint survey with conditional directions for alternative allotment or protection of possession. Directed officials to hold joint meeting within four months. Dispos

M. Susheela, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.36749 OF 2012

¶3

DATED:27-8-2015

¶4

Between: M. Susheela and others … Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Forest Department Secretariat Hyderabad and others … Respondents

¶5

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: Mr. M. Rajender Reddy

¶6

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 to 3: G.P. for Forests (TS) COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOs.4 and 5: G.P. for Revenue (TS)

¶7

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

It has become a common feature in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh that the Forest Department and the Revenue Department are at loggerheads in respect of several extents of lands. While the Revenue Department claims a particular land as non-forest land, the Forest Department takes a converse position. Sandwiched are the innocent citizens between these two departments. The present case is an instance of such dispute between the Revenue and the Forest Departments.

¶10

This Court feels that it is high time that the Revenue and the Forest Departments sink their differences by holding joint surveys wherever it is necessary and resolve the disputes as soon as possible, lest the innocent citizens would suffer.

¶11

Admittedly the petitioners were assigned Ac.1.00 of land each along with about 160 other persons by the Revenue Department. However, the Forest Department has taken the stand that these lands form part of Sirikonda Reserve Forest Block.

¶12

As there is a serious dispute as to whether the land in Sy. No.532 of Sirikonda Village, part of which has been assigned to the petitioners, is part of Sirikonda Reserve Forest or not, the District Collector, Nizamabad, is directed to get a joint survey held by involving respondent No.2, i.e., the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamareddy Division, after notice to the petitioners. If it is is found that the land assigned to the petitioners forms part of Sirikonda Reserve Forest, the Revenue Department shall allot alternative land to the petitioners, before cancelling the assignments. On such allotment, the petitioners shall vacate the lands in dispute assigned to them. On the contrary, if it is found that the lands assigned to the petitioners fall

¶13

outside the Reserve Forest, the Forest Department shall not interfere with their possession of the said land.

¶14

Before drawing curtains on this case, I feel that time has come for both the Revenue and Forest Departments to come to the negotiating table to sort out the disputes. The Principal Secretary, Revenue, State of Telangana, and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of the State of Telangana are directed to hold a joint Meeting of both the departments, identify the lands in dispute and find a lasting solution for this vexed problem as soon as possible and preferably within four months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶15

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.46645 of 2012 and W.V.M.P. No.465 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶16

_______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27-8-2015 bnr Note: The Registry shall forthwith send copies of Order to the Principal Secretary, Revenue, State of Telangana, and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, State of Telangana. (B.O.) bnr

M. Susheela, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Susheela, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal

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

The Official Liquidator, Vs DT.01-04-2014 to 30-09-2014.

The Official Liquidator, Vs DT.01-04-2014 to 30-09-2014.

The Official Liquidator, Vs DT.01-04-2014 to 30-09-2014.

R. Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal

J.Ratna Srinivas Vs The Apsrtc.rep.byits Managing Director

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd, Vs Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd.