Telangana High Court
Rathod Surekha Bai vs State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 10 November, 2022
Author: P.Madhavi Devi
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION Nos. 18982 and 18963 OF 2022
ORDER:
In both these writ petitions the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents No.2 and 3 in restraining the petitioners from removing bamboos which have been raised naturally in their lands under forest title deed Nos.1928010458 and 1928010354 respectively situated at Karanjiwada, Karanjiwada Village, Kerameri Mandal and Division, Asifabad District and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 08.02.2022 and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petitions are that the petitioners in both the writ petitions have been issued title deeds in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.8.585 gts and Ac.8.209gts under forest office title deed Nos.1928010458 & 1928010354 respectively, situated at Karanjiwada, Karanjiwada Village, Kerameri Mandal and Division, Asifabad District and the petitioners have been put in physical possession of the same for more than ten years. The petitioners submit that they belong to Schedule Tribe and PMD,J W.P.Nos.18982 & 18963 of 2022 2 therefore, the Government has assigned these lands to them to raise crops by cultivating the lands for their survival. It is submitted that petitioners are raising the seasonal crops in the agricultural land depending upon the availability of water and that they never planted bamboo sticks in the land assigned to them for carrying out agricultural activities. It is submitted that on 09.02.2022, the petitioners wanted to remove unplanted and unwanted bamboo sticks from their fields, but the forest officials obstructed the same. Thereafter, on the advice of the elders, the petitioners made representations to the respondents No.2 and 3 narrating all these facts and requested them not to interfere with their removal of bamboo sticks, but in spite of more than 1½ month, the respondents failed to respond to the grievance/representations of the petitioner. Therefore, the present writ petitions are filed.
3. It is submitted that unless the petitioners are permitted to remove the bamboo sticks from their land granted under patta certificate, they will not be able to cultivate their lands and raising better crops by using entire land.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the submissions made in the writ affidavit, has drawn the attention of this Court to the photographs filed by him, to contend that the PMD,J W.P.Nos.18982 & 18963 of 2022 3 bamboo sticks have grown naturally in the fields but are coming in the way of cultivation and therefore, they are seeking the permission of the authorities to cut the bamboo sticks which are coming in the way of cultivation and remove the same from their lands.
5. Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, relied upon on the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that on receipt of the application/representation of the petitioners for granting felling permission, officers have verified the location on the field and found that the area claimed by the petitioner for felling of long bamboo falls in the reserve forest area of Manikgarh Compt.No.14, Devapur South beat of Kerameri range and the title deed was given to the petitioners as per ROFR Act only and rights were recognized only for the cultivation and livelihood of the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners are entitled for cultivation and raising of agricultural crops for the bonafide needs of their livelihood, but they do not have any rights over the forest produce and wildlife existing on the reserve forest lands. It is submitted that the long bamboo which is sought to be felled by the petitioners, falls under the definition of Forest Produce under Section 2 of TS Forest Act 1967 and also wildlife rule under Section 2 Sub PMD,J W.P.Nos.18982 & 18963 of 2022 4 section 37 of the wildlife Protection Act 1972 and hence, removal of any Forest Produce and Wildlife from the notified reserve forest area is in contravention of the provisions of TS Forest Act 1967 and Wildlife Protection Act 1972. He thus, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any permission for removal of such forest produce and wildlife from the reserve forest lands.
6. It was further submitted that removal of long bamboo will lead to more soil erosion or may cause other ecological imbalance in the forest and nature and as the long bamboo will be nourished by various wild animals in the tiger reserve, the removal of such long bamboo is detrimental to wildlife in buffer zone of Kawal Tiger Reserve as the area claimed for felling of bamboo falls in buffer zone of Kawal Tiger Reserve.
7. It is further submitted that the land was allotted to the petitioners for their livelihood under ROFR Act and as per Section 3(1)(a) of Forest Rights Act 2006 "right to hold and live in the forest land under the individual or common occupation for habitation or for self-cultivation for livelihood by a member or members of forest dwelling scheduled tribe or other traditional forest dwellers". Therefore, those persons who live in forest as on 13.12.2005 were given rights over the forest lands for cultivation and their bonafide needs of livelihood, but the petitioners are PMD,J W.P.Nos.18982 & 18963 of 2022 5 prohibited from cutting and degrading the forest area. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also filed a reply to the counter affidavit stating that the petitioners are seeking permission to cut the bamboo trees which had grown naturally in their agricultural fields and which are causing hindrances in carrying out cultivation of lands given by the respondents for their survival. It is further submitted that the petitioners agricultural lands are not situated in the reserve forest area where agricultural operations are restricted. He further submits that the petitioners are carrying out only agricultural activities and are not growing bamboos in their fields. It is submitted that the petitioners are only seeking removal of unwanted trees for better enjoyment and for cultivation of lands. He also denies that the petitioners lands are situated in Tiger Reserve Forest Area or in the buffer zone of Kawal Tiger Reserve.
9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, it is noticed that both the petitioners have been allotted lands by the forest officials under ROFR Act for cultivation to eke out their livelihood. Having been allotted the lands, the petitioners are entitled to enjoy the same by cultivating the agricultural crops. If the long bamboos are coming in the way of PMD,J W.P.Nos.18982 & 18963 of 2022 6 cultivation by the petitioners, then the petitioners are entitled to remove the same. Admittedly, the petitioners are in possession of the subject land for the past 10 years. If the bamboos trees are on the boundaries of the land and are not in any way affecting the agricultural operations of the petitioners, the petitioners shall not be eligible for felling of such bamboos. Therefore, the respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to consider the representations of the petitioners and after physical inspection of the site, if they find that long bamboo trees are in the middle of the land and are creating hindrance in carrying out the agricultural operations, then they may consider granting permission to fell such bamboo trees only.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI Dated: 10.11.2022 bak PMD,J W.P.Nos.18982 & 18963 of 2022 7 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI W.P.Nos. 18982 and 18963 of 2022 Dated: 10.11.2022 bak