Telangana High Court
Sangireddy Srinivas, vs The State Of Telangana on 20 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.15808 of 2023
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forest appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 7 and Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.8. With their consent, this writ petition is disposed of.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:
"to declare the inaction of the 5th respondent in issuing permission for felling and transportation of the trees inspite of directions from 4th respondent vide RC No.246/2020/TO, dated 9.02.2023 in Patta land in Sy No.49,51, 52, 53 and 56 of Gagaram Village, Eturunagarm Mandal, Mulugu District as illegal arbitrary unreasonable vioaltive of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A against provisions of Telangana Forest Act, 1967 and consequently direct the 5th respondent to grant the permission to the petitioners for felling and transporting trees in Patta land in Sy Nos.49, 51, 52 53, 56 of Gagaram Village, Eturunagarm Mandal, Mulugu District as per law."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one late Shaik Meeran Mohiuddin was the original pattedar and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac. 50.02 Gts in Sy. No. 49, 51, 52, 53 and 56 situated in Gangaram Village, Eturunagarm mandal, Mulugu District having acquired the same through Revenue Auction. The late Shaik Meeran Mohiuddin was blessed with seven children and who are petitioner Nos.2 to 6 herein, after 2 the death of the said Shaik Meeran Mohiuddin, the above said subject land was inherited by the petitioner Nos.2 to 6. Subsequently, petitioner No.1 obtained power of attorney through registered GPA deed vide Doc No.96/2013, dated 28.05.2013 from petitioner Nos.2 to 6 and have entered into agreement to complete all the requisitie process to put down and sell the standing timber present in the subject land. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 made application before respondents No.2 seeking permission to fell the standing trees.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that permission for removing the standing tree growth is sought from the District Collector i.e., respondent No.8 and the same was granted vide Rc. No.E4/576/2012 dated 03.04.2013, in terms of the Telangana Forest Act, 1967 and under Sec. 28A & 28B of Chapter IIIB and the same is communicated to respondent No.6 and further submits that enumeration of trees present in subject land has been conducted twice once in 2013 and 2021 and a detailed report of the number of trees has been prepared by the respondent No.7 and the same is submitted to the other respondents for their perusal to grant the permission to fell the trees. The entire trees that are present in the subject are non-teak and non-sandalwood varieties and the subject land is adjacent to the boundary of the Eturunagarm Wildlife sanctuary. Therefore, Differential Global positioning System (hereafter referred as 'DGPS') was conducted in year 2021 to demarcate the subject land and boundaries be marked by way of a DGPS survey conducted by the forest officials and the 3 same was completed. In the said DGPS survey it is clearly found that the subject land is outside the boundaries of Eturunagarm Wildlife sanctuary with an average distance of 120 mts from the boundaries of Eturunagarm Wildlife sanctuary.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the respondent No.2 who is competent authority as per the guidelines of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate, dated 29.09.2016 has accorded the permission for felling of the trees, vide Ref 434466/2022Prod-2, dated 21.11.2022. Thereafter respondent No.4 has addressed a letter to respondent No.5, vide Rc. No.246/2020/Tq, dated 09.02.2023 to issue demand notice to petitioners under WALTA Act and prescribed conditions to be imposed on petitioners for issuance of the permit for felling and transporting the trees in subject land at the earliest. Subsequently, petitioners have also made representations to the respondents that petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed for grant of said permission and inspite of receiving the approval from the respondent No.2 who is the competent authority, the respondent No.5 again has sent back the file to the respondent No.4 with certain objections and again delayed the grant of permission vide Letter vide RC No.278/2020/S4, dated 20.04.2023, which reads as:
"There shall be no felling of trees on the forest, non-forest land or government or revenue or private lands falling within the eco Sensitive Zoner of protected areas without prior permission of the competent authority duly notified by the State Government".4
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further drawn attention of the letter bearing No.F.No.11-63/2012-Fc(Pt), dated 29.09.2016, wherein certain guidelines for felling permission of tress in Eco Sensitive Zone of Protected Areas has been laid down, which reads as:
1. There shall be no felling of trees on the forest, non-forest land or government revenue or private lands falling within the Eco Sensitive Zone of protected areas without prior permission of the competent authority duly notified by the State Government.
2. In case there is no Competent Authority notified by the State Government in such interim period, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in-charge of the territorial forests shall be the competent authority for this purpose and will grant permission for tree felling on the recommendation of the Divisional Forest in whose jurisdiction the ESZ fall who will recommend in accordance with the existing provisions of Central or State Act and rules made thereunder by the State Government for protection of trees in the state.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the draft notification for Eco-sensitive zone around Eturunagarm Wildlife Sanctuary was published in the Official Gazette on 27.07.2015, vide Gazette No. 1569, which was lapsed and a new draft notification is yet to be published for eco- sensitive zone around the Eturunagarm Wildlife Sanctuary, however, even if the subject land does fall under the ESZ of Eturunagarm Wildlife Sanctuary, the felling of trees is a regulated activity which can be done with the permission of Competent authority, i.e., Principal Chief Conservator of Forests-respondent No.2 herein, as per the guidelines of the Ministry of 5 Environment, Forest and climate Change dated 29.09.2016 and pray this court to direct the respondent authorities to issue permission for felling and transportation of trees in a time bound period.
8. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Forest appearing on behalf of respondents fairly submits that as on date there is no Competent Authority notified by the State Government to grant permission for felling of trees in Eco Sensitive Zone of protected Areas and further submits that respondent No.7 filed counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents and in para No.12 reads as:
"... Therefore the alleged claim of petitioners that they are the owners of the said lands is not free from doubt and common prudence. Since the petitioners title itself is under suspicious circumstances, the question of granting felling and transport permission doesn't arise, more over the alleged claim of the land is adjacent to the RF (Eturunagaram Wild Life Sanctuary) and sharing the common boundary with the RF. The RF Eturunagaram declared as a National Wild Life Sanctuary. The principles of eco- sensitive zone falls for strict complains in the case wherever Revenue and Forest land boundaries are sharing. It is submitted as the eco-sensitive zone and habitations does not allow any kind of distraction of Forest including felling and transportation which will directly impact the Wild life habitation and micro-organism. Even in the case of TN Godvaraman Thirumulpad, (1997)2 SCC 267, The Hon'ble Supreme Court enlarged the definition of Forest and settled the concept of deemed Forest which is followed by the 3 Judges bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narender Singh V/s Devish Bhutani, 2022. It is submitted that in view of the above facts and circumstances. The action of the 6 respondents in not allowing felling and transport permission is justified."
9. Learned Government Pleader for Forest submits that as per letter dated 29.09.2016, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest is in-charge of the territorial forests, and also the competent authority to grant permission for felling of trees basing on the recommendation of the Divisional Forest in whose jurisdiction the ESZ fall who will recommend in accordance with the existing provisions of Central or State Act and rules made thereunder by the State Government for protection of trees in the State, however learned Government Pleader further submits that petitioners' title is in question, therefore respondents are not allowing felling and transport on the subject land.
10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners may be granted liberty to make detailed representation along with relevant documents before respondent authorities and direct the respondent authorities to consider the same and thereafter pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law in a time bound period.
11. In view of the submission made by learned counsel appearing on either side and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to make detailed representation along with relevant documents within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter 7 respondent authorities more particularly District Forest Officer and Chief Conservator of Forest are directed to consider the said petitioners' representation by putting all the concerned parties on notice and give them a fair opportunity of hearing, shall pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of petitioners' representation and communicate the same to the concerned parties.
12. Needless to say, the respondents authorities shall consider the series of communications between the respondents before passing orders on the petitioners' representation.
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_________________________________ JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Date: 20.03.2024 SHA