WP/38024/2013 of Chokka Vidya Sagar Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh on 30 December 2014

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-asideproceedings Rc.No.DOR 11/2013-14, dated 9-12-2013 ofrespondent No.2 whereby he has confiscated thepetitioner’s tractor bearing No.AP-37-AZ-9349 (for short “thesubject tractor”).I have heard Mr. S. Appadhara Reddy, learnedcounsel for the petitioner and the learned AssistantGovernment Pleader for Forests (AP).

The Deputy Range Officer, Eluru has seized thesubject tractor and registered a case in P.O.R.No.20, on 9-8-2013 under Section 20(ii), (vii) and (x) of the A.P. ForestAct, 1967 when the subject tractor was deployed forploughing land which is allegedly a part of Bhogole ReserveForest in Bhogole Beat. A notice of enquiry was given to thepetitioner, following which an enquiry was held and theimpugned order of confiscation was passed.

The main defence of the petitioner before respondentNo.2 was that his father Chokka Istrayya, has filedO.S.No.81 of 2009 wherein a decree for permanentinjunction was passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge,Chintalapudi, restraining the forest officials from interfering with the enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint scheduleland until and unless they are evicted after due process oflaw if their applications for allotment of pattas were notconsidered. While considering the said decree, respondentNo.2 has observed that on misinterpretation of the saiddecree, the petitioner’s father entered and ploughed theforest land and that therefore the subject tractor is liable forconfiscation.

Along with the additional affidavit, the petitioner filed acopy of the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.81 of 2009 onthe file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi. Therelevant portion of the said decree reads as under :

“That the suit be and the same is hereby decreedand the defendants and their subordinates arehereby restrained by way of permanent injunctionfrom ever interfering with the peaceful possessionand enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaintschedule A&B properties, unless and until thedefendants are able to evict them through dueprocess of law and if their applications for allotment ofpattas were not considered.”

It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that afterthe decree was passed any order for eviction of the father ofthe petitioner was passed. Therefore, the very seizure ofthe subject tractor is in violation of the above mentioneddecree, what to say, of confiscation? Respondent Nos.2and 3 have committed a serious illegality in ignoring thedecree, registering a case and confiscating the subject tractor. Until and unless the petitioner’s father is evicted byfollowing due process of law, he and his family members areentitled to enter into the land and cultivate the same andsuch an act does not constitute forest offence.

For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set-aside. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to forthwithrelease the subject tractor to the petitioner. The Writ Petitionis accordingly allowed.

As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WVMPNo.1882 of 2014 is disposed of as infructuous.

________________________

Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

Date : 30-12-2014

AM