Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

He Further Submitted That As The ... vs Thummala Krishna Rao And Another on 29 January, 2026

            HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
                 MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.2427 of 2026                              SL1
                              PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                          OFFICE
        Date                            ORDER
No.                                                                           NOTE

02    29.01.2026 BSB,J

                                  W.P.No.2427 of 2026

                       The learned Assistant Government Pleader for
                Forests placed on record a copy of the written
                instructions of the Forest Range Officer (FAC),
                Muddanur, vide Rc.No.1/2025, dated 28.01.2026.

                       In view of the contents of the instructions, the
                respondents Nos.1 to 3 shall file counter affidavits.

Post the matter on 25.02.2026, for counter affidavits.

I.A.No.1 of 2026 This application is filed to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuant to the impugned notice in Rc.No.1/2025, dated 11.09.2025 issued by the respondent No.3.

In view of the adjournment of the writ petition for filing the counter affidavits, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested to pass appropriate interim order to protect the possession of the property admitted by the respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that apart from issuing the notice dated 11.09.2025, admitting possession of the land of Ac.10.72 cents out of Ac.383.35 cents in Sy.No.557 of Besthavemula Village, a complaint lodged against the petitioner in Contd...

Dt.29.01.2026 Form-A under Rule 3(1) of A.P. Forest Offences (Compounding & Prosecution) Rules, 1969, at column No.2, describing the nature of the offence, it was admitted by the respondents that by doing cultivation for about 30 to 50 years by encroachment, the petitioner has been in possession of the said property which according to the respondents is the forest land. He further submitted that the petitioner, his parents and grandparents have been in possession of the same for about 75 years, made the rocky land cultivable investing huge money and raised perennial trees like Orange and when the crop is ripe for yielding, the forest officials, at the instance of persons with evil eye and inimical to the petitioner, issued the notice dated 11.09.2025 for which a due reply was submitted by the petitioner, yet, the respondents are trying hard to evict the petitioner. He further submitted that since it is not a forest land, there is a survey number given to the land, whereas a land reserved for forest is usually referred as block.

He further submitted that as the petitioner has been in the property for long time, the respondents shall approach Civil Court for eviction to adjudicate their rights and cannot take upon themselves action to evict the petitioner summarily by issuing notice. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs.Thummala Krishna Rao and another1, at para Nos.9 & 10, which reads as follows:

Contd...

(1982) 2 SCC 134 3 W.P.No.2427 of 2026 Dt.29.01.2026 "9. The view of the Division Bench that the summary remedy provided for by Section 6 cannot be resorted to unless the alleged encroachment is of "a very recent origin", cannot be stretched too far. That was also the view taken by the learned Single Judge himself in another case which is reported in Meharunnissa Begum v. State of A.P. [(1970) 1 Andh LT 88] which was affirmed by a Division Bench [Meherunnissa Begum v. Govt. of A.P. AIR 1971 AP 382 : (1971) 1 Andh LT 292 : ILR 1972 AP 44] . It is not the duration, short or long, of encroachment that is conclusive of the question whether the summary remedy prescribed by the Act can be put into operation for evicting a person. What is relevant for the decision of that question is more the nature of the property on which the encroachment is alleged to have been committed and the consideration whether the claim of the occupant is bona fide. Facts which raise a bona fide dispute of title between the Government and the occupant must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary courts of law.

The Government cannot decide such questions unilaterally in its own favour and evict any person summarily on the basis of such decision. But duration of occupation is relevant in the sense that a person who is in occupation of a property openly for an appreciable length of time can be taken, prima facie, to have a bona fide claim to the property requiring an impartial adjudication Contd...

Dt.29.01.2026 according to the established procedure of law.

10. The conspectus of facts in the instant case justifies the view that the question as to the title to the three plots cannot appropriately be decided in a summary enquiry contemplated by Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The long possession of the respondents and their predecessors-in-title of these plots raises a genuine dispute between them and the Government on the question of title, remembering especially that the property, admittedly, belonged originally to the family of Nawab Habibuddin from whom the respondents claim to have purchased it. The question as to whether the title to the property came to be vested in the Government as a result of acquisition and the further question whether the Nawab encroached upon that property thereafter and perfected his title by adverse possession must be decided in a properly constituted suit. Maybe, that the Government may succeed in establishing its title to the property but, until that is done, the respondents cannot be evicted summarily."

On the other hand, Ms.Baliboyina Sravani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests submitted that it is a reserved forest area and the petitioner had not obtained any patta to the land and that he cannot acquire title even by adverse possession of forest land, however long the possession may be. She further submitted that when Contd...

Dt.29.01.2026 the respondents received alert about illegal occupation / encroachment by the petitioner, three notices were given to the petitioner in April, 2025, June, 2025 and September, 2025 which the petitioner avoided to receive and that a reply was ultimately given by the petitioner recently in this month. She further submitted that the respondents have a duty to protect the reserve forest by doctrine of trust and that the procedure contemplated under the Forest Act was adopted for eviction of the petitioner from the forest land. She further submitted that just because the land in dispute bears a Survey number, it cannot be said that it is not a forest land. She further submitted that the matter is pending before Loka Yuktha and it is posted to 05.02.2026 for submission of action taken report regarding eviction of encroachers. She further submitted that there was a joint survey conducted on 25.04.2025 as per which the petitioner encroached Ac.10.72 cents. It is also submitted by her that it was recorded as forest land in the revenue records and therefore, the Department of Forest has control over the land and can take all necessary action to protect the forest area, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India and others2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Loka Yuktha has no jurisdiction and that it is not only the petitioner, but there are neighbours in occupation of the adjacent lands, however, the action Contd...

1997 (2) SCC 267 6 W.P.No.2427 of 2026 Dt.29.01.2026 was proposed only against the petitioner due to the aforesaid reasons.

In view of the rival contentions and dispute of nature of the property, a detailed counter affidavit and hearing are required. Moreover, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Thummala Krishna Rao (supra), the authority of the respondents to proceed with in a summary way is under challenge. Admittedly, the petitioner has been in possession of the disputed property for a very long time ranging from 30 to 50 years even as per the contents of the Form-A noted above. Therefore, if the petitioner evicted right at present, before having a detailed hearing on merits after completion of pleadings, it would result in prejudice to his rights and great loss in view of the standing crop ripe with yield. Even as per the respondents, they came to know about the forest land only after the complaint against the petitioner.

Under these circumstances, it is a case fit to grant interim stay as prayed for, at least for a limited duration. Therefore, interim order as prayed for is granted till 25.02.2026.

Meanwhile, the respondents shall file counter affidavits in the writ petition.

__________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI,J NSM