Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh And 4 Others vs Gudibandi Somasekhar Reddy And 11 ... on 20 June, 2019
Author: C. Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
1
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
WRIT APPEAL Nos.6 and 7 of 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice C.Praveen Kumar) Assailing the orders dated 01.10.2018 passed in W.P.Nos.24161 and 24034 of 2018 respectively by a learned Judge of this Court, the State of Andhra Pradesh and the officials of the Forest Department filed the present writ appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
The respondents are the petitioners in the above writ petitions. They filed the said writ petitions questioning the action of the appellant authorities in trying to include their patta lands situated in Zami Navepothavaram Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District, into Navepothavaram Forest Block, by altering the boundaries of the said Forest Block and by issuing errata publication to the Notification dated 14.05.1970. Having considered the rival contentions, the learned single Judge held that the impugned action on the part of the authorities in resorting to issuance of errata publication and concluding the proceedings, without following the mandatory requirements under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for short, 'the Act'), is a patent violation of the provisions of the statue. Having held so, the learned single Judge, by the orders under appeal, allowed the writ petitions, declaring the proceedings impugned as wholly illegal and arbitrary, and left it open to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law after issuing notification afresh under Section 4 of the Act to the extent of the lands of the respondents-writ petitioners and also to the extent of the lands not covered by the notification under Section 4 of the Act. 2 Aggrieved thereby, the appellant authorities are before this Court by way of these appeals.
Heard the learned Government Pleader for Forests and the learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners.
In the light of the facts in issue, the only question that would arise for consideration in these writ appeals is - 'Whether the action of the appellant authorities in proposing to include the lands of the respondents- writ petitioners in Forest Block, by issuing errata notification to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, is justified in law?' To consider the above question, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act.
Section 4 of the Act deals with the notification by the Government and the same reads as under:
'4. Notification by Government:- (1) Whenever it is proposed to constitute any land as a reserved forest, the Government shall publish a notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette and in the District Gazette concerned in any;
(a) specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of such land;
(b) declaring that it is proposed to constitute such land as reserved forest;
(c) appointing a Forest Settlement Officer to consider the objections, if any, against the declaration under Clause (b) and to enquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of any rights claimed by, or alleged to exist in favour of, any person in or over any land comprised within such limits, or to any forest produce of such land, and to deal with the same as provided in this Chapter.
Explanation:- (1) For the purpose of Clause (a), it shall be sufficient to describe the limits of the land by any well- 3 known or readily intelligible boundaries, such as roads, rivers, bridges and the like.
(2) A person appointed to be a Forest Settlement Officer under Clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall be an officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of a Revenue Divisional Officer.
(3) Any forest officer may represent the Forest Department at the inquiry conducted under this Chapter.' Section 6 mandates a proclamation to be published by the Forest Settlement Officer in the District Gazette concerned or in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, as the case may be, specifying the situation and limits of the land proposed to be included and calling for the objections within the period fixed, in the manner prescribed.
Section 8 deals with Inquiry by Forest Settlement Officer and reads thus:
'8. Inquiry by Forest Settlement Officer:- (1) The Forest Settlement Officer shall consider every objection and inquire into every claim made under Section 6, after recording in writing the statements made or evidence given in pursuance of the proclamation published or notice served under that section. He shall record any representation which the forest officer, if any, representing the Forest Department under sub-section (3) of Section 4, may make in respect of any such objection or claim.
(2) The evidence under sub-section (1) shall be recorded in the manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in appealable cases.' From a reading of the above provisions, it is clear that whenever the Government proposes to constitute any land as a reserved forest, it shall publish a notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette and in the District Gazette concerned, making a declaration to that effect and specifying the 4 situation and limits of such land, as required under Section 4 of the Act.
The said provision also stipulates that under the notification, a Forest Settlement Officer shall be appointed to consider the objections, if any, against the declaration under Clause (b) and to enquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of any rights claimed by any persons over the land compromised with the limits of the land proposed. The Forest Settlement Officer so appointed has to carry out publication of proclamation as per Section 6 of the Act and has to conduct enquiry into the objections and claims made in pursuance of such proclamation, as provided under Section 8 of the Act.
Thus, it is evident that the first and foremost thing to be followed by the Government when it proposes to constitute any land as a reserved forest, is to issue a notification under Section 4 of the Act, specifying the situation and limits of such land. In the instant case, admittedly, the lands of the respondents-writ petitioners were not covered under the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, but they were sought to be included at a later stage, by proposing to issue an errata notification to the original notification.
Learned Government Pleader for Forests fairly conceded across the Bar that the procedure as required under Section 4 of the Act was not followed in so far as the lands of the respondents-writ petitioners are concerned. He, however, stated that the land, which is proposed to be constituted as reserved forest under the errata notification, is less than the land proposed under the original notification under Section 4 of the Act and hence, there cannot be any grievance to the respondents-writ petitioners with the issuance of errata notification.
5
We are afraid, we cannot agree with this submission. Merely because the errata notification proposes lesser extent of land to be constituted as reserve forest, it does not mean that the procedure as required under the Act need not be followed. When the lands of the respondents-writ petitioners are proposed for constitution as reserved forest, it is mandatory on the part of the authorities to issue a notification under Section 4 of the Act, specifying the limits and extent of land and appoint a Forest Settlement Officer, thereby enabling the respondents-writ petitioners to raise their objections before the Forest Settlement Officer in respect of the land specified in the notification. If the authorities circumvent the procedure to be followed consequent upon issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, by simply issuing errata notification, the respondents-writ petitioners would not be in a position to make use of their right to put forth their objections or claims in relation to their lands, which are sought to be constituted as forest block, before the Forest Settlement Officer in the course of enquiry under Section 8 of the Act. Depriving the affected parties of such right provided under the statute is arbitrary and illegal.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we see no error in the orders under appeal, requiring the authorities to proceed in accordance with law after issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act to the extent of the lands of the respondents-writ petitioners. We reiterate that if the lands of the respondents-writ petitioners are proposed to be constituted as reserved forest, the Government shall issue a notification under Section 4 of the Act and the Forest Settlement Officer appointed under the said notification shall follow the procedure as required under the provisions of the Act.
The writ appeals are accordingly disposed of.
6As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_______________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ACJ __________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J Dt: 20.06.2019 IBL 7 HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY WRIT APPEAL Nos.6 and 7 of 2019 Dt: 20.06.2019 IBL