WP/3678/2007 of P. Suri Babu, Vs The District Forest Officer, on 31 December 2010

ORAL ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring theaction of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to carry onquarrying operations in an extent of 2.000 hectares of land inSy.No.207/1 of Gontuvanipalem village, Addateegala mandal, EastGodavari district in pursuance of lease granted by the Deputy Directorof Mines and Geology, Kakinada in proceedings No.453/A1/2007dated 22.1.2007 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct therespondents not to interfere or obstruct the petitioner to carry on thequarrying operations in the said land.

According to the petitioner, he was granted mining lease for roadmetal over an extent of 2.00 Hectares in Sy.No.207/1 ofGontuvanipalem village, Addateegala mandal, East Godavari districtfor a period of 10 years. While that being so, the respondentsobstructed the said quarry operations of the petitioner on the groundthat the land in which operations are being conducted is in theperiphery of protected forest land. Hence this writ petition.

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf ofrespondents denying the allegations made by the petitioner and statedthat the subject land in which the petitioner is carrying on quarryingoperations is a protected forest area notified vide G.O.Ms.No.247Forest and Rural Development (For.III), Department dated 22.3.1978and once the land is notified under A.P. Forest Act, 1967, it is theresponsibility of the Revenue Department to enter the land particularsin prohibitory order book, so that the land is not assigned to any non-forestry purpose after notification. The notification was routed throughrevenue authorities only and published in the District Gazette/Andhra Pradesh Gazette. The Government has noticed that some of theMandal Revenue Officers are issuing ‘no objection certificates’ forquarrying in the notified forest areas on the pleas that as per therevenue records, those lands are recorded as ‘Gattu Poramboke’. Even after publishing draft notification proposal under Section 4 of A.P.Forest Act, 1967 in the State and District Gazettes, the revenueauthorities are not updating the classifications of lands/areas, whichare causing lot of confusion and necessary litigations leading to Courtcases. According to the respondents, since the subject land isprotected forest area, the same could not have been leased out by theMines and Minerals Department.

It is unfortunate that even according to the counter filed by therespondents, in the revenue records, it is noted as ‘Gattu Poramboke’. It is for the respondents to get the entries rectified and instead of doingthat, they are obstructing the petitioner, who is conducting quarryoperations in pursuance of the lease granted by the Deputy Director ofMines and Geology, Kakinada vide proceedings No.453/A1/2007dated 22.1.2007. According to the respondents, they have conductedsurvey of the land and in the said survey, the subject land was found tobe a protected forest land.

Admittedly, the alleged survey was not conducted in thepresence of the petitioner. All these assertions made by therespondents are not established by way of any admissible evidenceand in fact there is no evidence. Therefore, I am of the opinion that solong as the petitioner holds a valid licence issued by the Mines andGeology Department, the respondents cannot interfere with the quarryoperations conducted by the petitioner.

Under those circumstances, the respondents are directed not tointerfere with the quarry operations conducted by the petitioner in theland to an extent of 2.000 hectares in Sy.No.207/1 of Gontuvanipalemvillage, Addateegala mandal, East Godavari district. However, this will not preclude the respondents from taking appropriate legal steps, if soadvised, as per law.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.

Date: 31.12.2010DA

______________C.V.RAMULU,J

31.12.2010

Conclusion

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD

Date: 31[st] December, 2010

Between:

P.Suri Babu

And

. Petitioner

The District Forest Officer,Kakinada, East Godavari districtand others.

.. Respondents