WP/18172/2015 of Velagapudi Maruthi Mohan Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh. on 31 December 2015

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the action ofrespondents in making and raising plantations in theproperty belonging to petitioners of extent Ac.26.00 centsin Sy.Nos.112/8, 112/9, 112/10 to 112/14 in Biradawadavillage of Naidupeta Tahsil of Nellore District, of whichpetitioners claim to be holding ryotwari patta as perGovernment records and for possession thereof.

2. The petitioners 1and 3 are the sons of oneVelagapudi Venkata Krishna Rao (for short ‘Krishna Rao’).Petitioner 2 is wife of 1[st] petitioner and petitioners 6 and 7 are 1[st] petitioner’ssons. Petitioners 4 and 5 are the son and daughter of 3[rd]petitioner.

THE CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONERS

3. Petitioners contend that Beeramanu Khandriga, anAgraharam village, was under the erstwhile abolishedVenkatagiri Estate and the ancestors of the petitionersand one Velagapudi Subba Rao purchased Ac.160.00 ofland of that village under 2 registered sale deeds in 1944

and 1950. They contend that their vendors andthemselves were in possession of the land long prior tothe abolition of Venkatagiri Estate under A.P. (AndhraArea) Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act,1948 (for short “the Act”); that Settlement Authoritiesconducted survey and settlement operations under thesaid Act; and on an application filed under Section 15 ofthe said Act, directed issuance of ryotwari pattas for theextent of Ac.160.00 to Velagapudi family members for apart of the said land only and refused to grant them for thebalance. They contend that Krishna Rao and VenkataSubba Rao and others challenged this decision of theauthorities in appeal A.S.No.178 of 1956 before theEstates Abolition Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nellore; thesaid appeal was allowed by order dt.24-08-1957 setting aside the order of the Additional Settlement Officer,Nellore and it was directed that all the appellants(including Krishna Rao) be issued ryotwari pattas inrespect of the entire extent of Beeramanu Khandrigavillage, Sullurpeta Taluk, Nellore District.

4. They contend that subsequent to the abolition ofthe estate, in the settlement and survey operations, thepetitioners’ ryotwari patta land of Ac.160.00 was mergedin Sy.No.112 of Biradawada Village since Beeramanu Khandriga was merged in Biradawada Revenue village;that when some of their family members insisted forimplementation of the judgment of the Estates AbolitionTribunal in A.S.No.178 of 1957 by issuing ryotwari pattasand for making necessary entries in the village and DistrictRevenue records, the Revenue authorities issued pattaNo.96 only for Ac.105.77 cents and also madecorresponding entries in 10(1) village accounts which arereflected in the proceedings Rc.E-14/5464/2006 dt.22-12-2010 of the District Collector, Nellore addressed to theTahsildar; and that in the said proceedings, the Collectordirected the Tahsildar to implement the order of theEstates Abolition Tribunal with regard to the balanceextent of Ac.54.23 cents and report by 30-12-2010.

5. It appears that a notification under Section 4 of theA.P. (Andhra Area) Forests Act, 1882 was issued by theGovernment of Andhra Pradesh proposing to constitute aReserved Forest in the lands specified within theboundaries stated in the schedule of the notificationG.O.Ms.No.1745 F.A. dt.31-08-1963 and appointing theSub-Collector, Gudur as the Ex-Officio Forest SettlementOfficer. This notification was published in the Gazette ofNellore District on 15-08-1963 and 02-09-1963 proposingto reserve Ac.2,878.00 of land in Rosanur Forest Block

6. Petitioners contend that subsequently ForestSettlement Officer issued a proclamation under Section 6of the said Act inviting objections from the public and itwas published in the District Gazette

dt.02-09-1963; while these proceedings were pending,petitioners contend that G.O.Ms.No.2021 Food andAgriculture (For.I) Department dt.07-10-1970 was issuedby the Government directing de-reservation (deletion fromthe proposal to reserve as forest land) of an extent ofAc.613.00 in Sy.No.112 of Biradawada block and anotherextent of land of Nelaballi village in Sy.No.3; and forplacing the deleted land at the disposal of the Collector forrehabilitation of displaced persons displaced for theSriharikota Rocket range. According to petitioners, this isreflected in Memo No.4422/For.I/70-19 dt.01-05-1972 ofthe Government of Andhra Pradesh, Food and AgricultureDepartment addressed to the Chief Conservator ofForests.

7. They contend that in view of the Government ordersto delete the said extents, the Forest Settlement Officersubmitted a draft notification to the District Collectorthrough the District Forest Officer for publication underSection 15 of the A.P .Forests Act, 1967 only for an extent of Ac.1713.70 cents instead of Ac.2878.00 excluding theabove extent in Sy.No.112 of Biradawada village inRosanur Forest Block.

8. Petitioners placed reliance on proceedingsR.C.No.25/64-C dt.31-01-1974 addressed by the ForestSettlement Officer, Nellore to the Chief Conservator ofForests, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad corroborating thefact that Ac.613.00 in Sy.No.112 of Biradawada villagewas de-reserved. These proceedings record that theState Government in G.O.Ms.No.2521 F & A (For.I) Deptdt.7.1.1970 and Memo No.4422/For-I/70-19 dt.1.5.1972ordered for de-reservation of 636 acres in S.No.3 ofNelabilli Village and 613 acres in S.No.112 of BiradawadaVillage and while doing so, placed this land at the disposalof the District Collector for rehabilitating displaced personsin Sriharikota in connection with the installation of EastCoast Rocket range.

9. Therefore petitioners contend that the land inSy.No.112 ceased to be forest land or part of reservedforest. Petitioners contend that final notification wasissued under the A.P.Forest Act, 1967 by the Governorvide G.O.Ms.No.978 Forests and Village Development(Forest III Dept) dt.03-11-1976 and was published inNellore District Gazette dt.02-03-1977 notifying only Ac.1713.00 in Rosanur Reserve Forest excluding thearea in Sy.No.112 of Biradavada village. They furthercontend that the area notified as reserve forest was alsoshown in a plan kept with the Chief Conservator ofForests and a copy of the said plan was filed as annexureP-6 to the Writ Petition. This plan indicates that the land inSy.No.112 of extent Ac.493.50 cents forms easternboundary of the Rosanur Reserved Forest block anddoes not fall within the said reserved forest block.

10. Petitioners allege that even otherwise the EstatesAbolition Tribunal had treated the land as ryotwari and ithad declared that petitioners are entitled for ryotwaripattas also.

11. Petitioners contend that in proceedingsRc.E14/5464/2006

dt.22-12-2010 of the District Collector, Nellore Districtaddressed to the Tahsildar, Naidupeta, he instructed thelatter that the order dt.24.8.1957 of the Estates AbolitionTribunal in A.S.No.178/1956 had been implemented onlyin respect of Ac.105.77 cents in 10(1) Account with pattaNo.96; for the balance of Ac.54.23 cents, it is still to beimplemented in the fair adangal and other revenuerecords; that the petitioners have been in possession ofthe same; and the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal having become final, for the remaining extent of Ac.54.23cents in Sy.No.112 of Biradawada village also the order ofthe Estates Abolition Tribunal be implemented in favour ofpetitioners in the Mandal and Village records after gettingthe sub-division record prepared by 30-12-2010.

12. They further rely upon the proceedingsRc.B.10/2009 dt.08-04-2011 of the Tahsildar FAC,Naidupeta Mandal addressed to the District Collector,Nellore District to implement the instructions of the DistrictCollector in his letter dt.22-12-2010 for implementing theorder of the Estates Abolition Tribunal in respect ofAc.54.23 cents in Sy.No.112 by issuing pattadar passbook and title deeds.

13. Petitioners contend that taking this into account, theJoint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Nellore inproceedings Rc.E.14/5464 dt.12-09-2011 passed ordersto include the name of petitioners and other claimants aspattadars in respect of Ac.54.23 cents in Sy.No.112 in thefollowing manner:

“21. …

112/1 0.49

112/3 0.83

112/4 5.00

112/5 4.20

112/6 4.23

112/7 5.00

112/8 5.00

112/9 4.48

112/10 5.00

112/11 5.00

112/12 5.00

112/13 5.00

112/14 5.00

--------

54.23”

According to the petitioners, this extent of Ac.54.23 centscovers the land of Ac.26.00 forming part of Sy.Nos.112/8,112/9, 112/10 to 112/14 of Biradawada village (which issubject matter of this writ petition) and directs theTahsildar to include the names of present pattadars, whoobtained rights over the land through registered deeds, tobe mutated and incorporated in the Adangal and 1-Bregister.

14. Petitioners contend that, notwithstanding the deletionof the entire extent of Sy.No.112 from the proposedreservation of Rosanur forest block and placing it at thedisposal of the Revenue authorities even by 1972, longbefore the notification issued under Section 15 of the A.P.Forest Act, 1967, the Officials of the Forest Departmenteither intentionally or mistakenly raised plantations in theextent of Ac.26.00 referred to above, which are not part ofthe Rosanur forest block and which are ryotwari pattalands of petitioners.

15. Petitioners contend that they got issued legal notice

dt.26-09-2011 to the District (Social Division) ForestOfficer, Nellore and the Social Forest Range Officer,Naidupeta requesting them to remove the plantationsunauthorizedly raised in their patta lands. According topetitioners, 3[rd] respondent sent a detailed reportRc.No.417/2012.D.M. dt.08-10-2012 to the Principal ChiefConservator of Forests, Hyderabad (2[nd] respondent)stating that the Forest Department had spentRs.3,59,736/- for raising plantations in the above extent ofAc.26.00 of petitioners and assessing the value ofstanding forest produce at Rs.7,36,609/- and soughtinstructions. They also contend that 4[th] respondent hadrecommended to 3[rd] respondent to recover the costs ofthe plantations or the value of forest produce frompetitioners and they assert that petitioners are willing topay the same.

16. They contended that 3[rd] respondent forwarded it tothe 2[nd] respondent by proceedings dt.03-11-2012 agreeingwith the remarks of the 4[th] respondent and recommendingthat the value of the standing crop raised in the subjectland, for which pattas had already been given, beaccepted.

17. Thereafter according to petitioners, 2[nd] respondentdirected a joint inspection to be made by Revenue andForest Officials, and on 29-12-2012, a joint inspectionreport signed by the Revenue and Forest Officials, wassubmitted stating that the plantation is covered inAc.26.00 in Sy.Nos.112/8 to 112/4, that the land is fit forcultivation and that there are no encroachments in theland. According to petitioners, there was further survey on28-01-2013 and after the said survey, again 4[th]respondent informed 3[rd] respondent that the above extentof Ac.26.00 in Sy.No.112 is not part of reserve forest.

18. Petitioners contend that in spite of all this evidencethat the above extent of Ac.26.00 in Sy.No.112 is not partof reserve forest of Rosanur forest block, the 2[nd]respondent addressed a letter dt.26-04-2014 tothe District Collector alleging that the land had beenrecorded as ‘Adavi Poramboke’ in fair Adangal at somepoint of time, that the Supreme Court had ordered that anyland recorded as ‘Adavi poramboke’ in Revenue recordsattracts the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980,that ryotwari pattas could not have been issued in favourof petitioners’ predecessors after the said Act came intoforce, and requesting a clarification as to how theclassification from ‘Adavi poramboke’ to ‘metta’ was made and how pattas were allotted.

19. According to petitioners, the District Collector againreviewed the entire record and replied vide proceedingsRc.No.E14/5464/2006 dt.03-09-2014 informing the 2[nd]respondent that there is no fresh patta given by the JointCollector-cum-Settlement Officer, Nellore; he had merelyimplemented the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal

dt.24-08-1957 for the remaining extent of Ac.54.23cents; that if the Forest Department had any objectionregarding grant of settlement of patta in favour ofpetitioners’ predecessors by the Estates AbolitionTribunal, they ought to have filed objections before itduring the course of enquiry in appeal A.S.No.178 of1956; and since they did not do so, the issue cannot bereopened again, particularly when the said Tribunalordered that ryotwari pattas be issued in respect of theentire extent of Beeramanu Khandriga village. The DistrictCollector also informed the 2[nd] respondent that the Forest(Conservation) Act was enacted in 1980, but the EstateAbolition Tribunal’s decision was on 24-08-1957, at whichtime there was no Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 andtherefore the implementation of the Tribunal’s order hasno connection with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The District Collector further reiterated that the land in Sy.No.112 of Biradawada village was excluded and theEastern boundary of Rosanuru Reserve Forest fromstation Nos.43 to 47 runs along with the Westernboundary of Sy.No.112 of Biradawada village.

20. Petitioners therefore contend that the land ofAc.26.00 in Sy.No.112 is not part of Rosanuru ReserveForest block but lies outside it, and the several jointinspections conducted by the Forest Department andRevenue Department corroborate this fact. Also the otherdocumentary evidence mentioned above proves beyonddoubt that the Forest Department Officials are not entitledto continue to raise plantation in the petitioners’ lands inspite of the fact that ryotwari pattas had been issued tothem by the Revenue Department implementing the orderof the Estates Abolition Tribunal in A.S.No.178 of 1956,that petitioners cannot be deprived of the use of the saidland and therefore the respondents be directed to deliverpossession of the said extent of land to petitioners.

Counter-affidavits of respondents:

21. The 4[th] respondent filed a Counter affidavit refutingthe contentions of petitioners. He contended that while thepetitioners stated that 160 acres of land of Beeramanukandriga was purchased through registered sale deeds in 1944, 1950, the Joint Collector in his proceedings videR.C.E.14/5464/06 dt.12.09.2011 had mentioned that theregistered sale deeds pertained to the years 1945 and1956 and that the survey numbers of the lands purchasedare not mentioned in the sale deeds. He contends thatpetitioners should be put to strict proof of the same. Healso contends that the Act came into force in 1948 and sothe petitioners or their predecessors could not havepurchased the land pertaining to the Estate in 1950/1956.

22. Although the respondents state that petitioners’application for patta under Section 15(1) of the 1956 Actwas rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer inMPSR.No.313/51 dt.17.09.1951, they admit thatAS.No.178 of 1956 filed against the said order by KrishnaRao and others before the Estate Abolition ActTribunal/District Judge, Nellore was allowed and theorders of the Assistant Settlement Officer were set aside. He however contends that this order is not based on meritor the records of the case but it was disposed of on theground that the Government Pleader had not opposed theappeal and that this order were not implemented till 2011.

23. He contends that subsequent to the abolition of theEstates, lands in Venkatagiri Estate were excluded to formthe Rosanur block of Forests which were notified under

Sections 4 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area)Forest Act, 1882 vide G.O.Ms.No.1745, F & ADepartment, dt.31.08.1963 and the notification waspublished in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 15.08.1963and in the Nellore District Gazette dt.02.09.1963. Hesubmitted that the land in Survey No.112 of BiradawadaVillage was included in the Rosanur Reserve Forest Blocknotified under Section 4 of the 1882 Act and that it wasincumbent on the petitioners’ predecessors’ to makeclaims over the proposed land to be included in theRosanur Block before the Forest Settlement Officer. Hestates that since there was no such claims, the ForestSettlement Officer did not exclude the land of BiradawadaVillage in favour any of the claimants under the AndhraPradesh Forest Act. He also placed reliance on Section 7of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 and contendedthat during the interval between the publication of anotification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette and theGazette under Section 4 and the date fixed by thenotification under Section 15, no right can be acquired byany person over the land included in the notification underSection 4 except by succession or under a grant orcontract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf ofGovernment or any person in whom such right wasvested before the publication of notification under Section

4. He also contended that under Section 7 no patta canbe granted by or on behalf of the Government.

24. While the respondents admit that in GovernmentMemo No.4422/For.I/70-79 dt.01.05.1972 andGovernment Memo No.2021/F&A (For.I) dt.07.10.1970,the land in Sy.No.112 of Biradawada Village and otherlands was ordered to be de-reserved for rehabilitation ofdisplaced persons in Sriharikota, East Coast RocketRange, they contend that the exclusion of Sy.No.112under these memos was not in favour of petitioners, but itwas done for a wholly different purpose and on totallydifferent grounds. They alleged that petitioners aremisleading the issue for their benefit, and therefore, thepetitioners cannot be treated as rightful owners.

25. The 4[th] respondent alleges that the Social ForestryDivision, Nellore had raised plantations since 1994-95 till2008-09 in the extent of 26 acres in Sy.No.112 which isclaimed by petitioners, and the petitioners had kept quietfor more than six decades. He referred to Section 13 ofthe Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition andConversion to Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and contended thatpetitioners cannot seek any relief for grant of RyotwariPattas since the above lands were not in continuouspossession and enjoyment of the petitioners or their relatives and they were in possession and enjoyment ofthe Social Forestry Division, Nellore from 1994-95 till date.

26. He also contends that Sy.No.112 of extentAcs.613.52 cents was classified as Adavi Poramboke asper report of the Tahsildar, Naidupeta Mandal videRc.No.B10/2009 dt.08.04.2011 and Rc.No.B/480/2012,dt.28.08.2012; and that the Supreme Court India in itsorder dt.12.12.1996 in WP.No.202 of 1995 had held thatthe provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 forconservation of forests would apply to all forests areaunderstood irrespective of the ownership or classificationthereof; and therefore, any land regarded as AdaviPoramboke in the revenue records attracts the provisionsof the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

27. He contends that petitioners cannot be deliveredpossession of the land basing on the order of the JointCollector and Additional District Magistrate, Nellore inRc.No.E/14/5464/06 dt.12.09.2011 since these orderswere passed after the enactment of the Forest(Conservation) Act, 1980. He contends that forests arenational assets, that the department is responsible forcreation of plantation in the subject land and increase thegreen cover, and the petitioners cannot claim any rightover the land on the basis of orders passed under the Act. He contends that since the lands are classified asForest Poramboke in Government records they cannot betreated as non-forest lands, that Adavi Poramboke landsare community lands and so the Social Forestry Divisionhad rightly raised plantations therein. Therefore, hecontends that in public interest the claim of petitioners berejected. He contends that once it is revealed that Section112 is Adavi Poramboke, even the report of the ChiefConservator of Forests, Planning and Extension Circle,Guntur would have no relevance.

28. In para no.30, however, the respondents admit thatRosanur Reserve Forest was notified under Section 15 ofthe Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 videG.O.Ms.No.978 Forest and Rural Development (For.III)dt.03.11.1976 and verification of the gazette notificationsand the block map of Rosanuru Reserve Forest availablein the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Social ForestryDivision, Nellore District as well as in the ForestSettlement records, reveals that land in Sy.No.112 ofBiradawada Village was excluded from the said ForestBlock and the eastern boundary of Rosanuru ReserveForest from Station No.43 to 47 runs along the Westernboundary of Sy.No.112 of Biradawada Village.

29. He thus contends that there is no question of unauthorized raising or maintenance of plantations in thesubject land and prays that the Writ Petition be dismissed.

THE POINT FOR CONSIDERATION

30. From the above contentions the point forconsideration is:

“whether, having regard to the decision of the EstateAbolition Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nellore dt.24-08-1957 in A.S.No.178 of 1956 declaring that thepetitioner’s predecessor-in-title Krishna Rao and otherappellants therein are entitled to ryotwari patta in respectof the entire extent of Biramanu Khandriga, to which theGovernment of Andhra Pradesh is a party, it is open tothe respondents to contend that this land is a forest landand the petitioners are not entitled to possessionthereof?”

THE CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT

Conclusion

31. The A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates Abolition andConversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948 was enacted for therepeal of the Permanent Settlement of 1802, theAcquisition of rights of landholders in permanently settledand certain Estates in the erstwhile State of Madras(which was succeeded by the State of Andhra Pradesh) in relation to areas now covered by the present State ofAndhra Pradesh and the introduction of the RyotwariSettlement in such Estates. This statute is one of thestatutes included in the IX[th] schedule to the Constitution ofIndia and is protected by Article 31-B of the Constitution ofIndia.

32. It provides for abolition of Estates as defined inSection 2(3) of the said Act including minor Inams (PostSettlement or Pre-Settlement) included in the assets of theZamindari Estate at the Permanent Settlement of thatEstate, all communal lands and porambokes, other non-ryoti lands, waste lands, pasture lands, lanka lands,forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams,tanks and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries by issuinga notification under Section 3 thereof and their transferand vesting in the Government, free from allencumbrances (Sub-Section (b) of Section 3). Sub-Section (c) of Section 3 states that all rights and interestscreated in or over the Estate before the notified date bythe Principal or any other land holder, shall as against tothe Government cease and determine. Sub-Section (d)provides that the Governments may, after removing anyobstruction that may be offered, forthwith take possessionof the Estate, and all accounts, registers, pattas, muchilkas, maps, plans and other documents relating tothat Estate which the Government may require for theadministration thereof. But proviso to Section 3 (d) directsthe Government not to dispossess any person of any landin the Estate in respect of which they consider that he isprima facie entitled to a ryotwari patta:

(i) If such person is a ryot, pending thedecision of the Settlement Officer as towhether he is actually entitled to such patta;decision of the Settlement Officer as towhether he is actually entitled to such patta;

(ii) If such person is a landholder pending thedecision of the Settlement Officer and theTribunal on appeal, if any, to it as to whetherhe is actually entitled to such patta.decision of the Settlement Officer and theTribunal on appeal, if any, to it as to whetherhe is actually entitled to such patta.

33. While Section 11 states that ryots are entitled toryotwari patta in respect of all ryoti lands, Sections 12 to14 entitles landholders holding lands in Zamindari Estate,Inam Estate and under-tenure Estate to obtain ryotwaripattas. Section 15 provides for determination of lands inwhich a landholder is entitled to ryotwari patta underSections 12 to 14 by the Settlement Officer and alsoprovides for an appeal to an Estate Abolition Tribunalconstituted under the Act. Importantly under clause (a) ofsub-Section (2) of Section 15, the decision of the EstateAbolition Tribunal in an appeal against a decision of theSettlement Officer is given finality and the said decision of the Tribunal is not liable to be questioned in any Court oflaw. The said provision is extracted for betterunderstanding:

“15.Determination of lands in which the landholderis entitled to ryotwari patta under foregoing provisions:-

(1) The Settlement Officer shall examine the nature andhistory of all lands in respect of which the landholderclaims a ryotwari patta under Sections 12, 13 or 14, as thecase may be, and decide in respect of which lands theclaim should be allowed.

(2) (a) Against a decision of the Settlement Officer undersub-section (1), the Government may, within one year fromthe date of the decision of if such decision was givenbefore the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (AndhraArea) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)(Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1957, within one yearfrom such commencement, and any person aggrieved bysuch decision may, within two months from the date of thedecision or such further time as the Tribunal may in itsdiscretion allow, appeal to the Tribunal; and its decisionshall be final and not be liable to be questioned in anyCourt of law….”

(emphasis supplied)

34. In the present case, petitioners contend that KrishnaRao has purchased land in Beeramanu Khandriga underregistered document dt.17-04-1945 and 12-07-1956, thatsubsequently the petitioners purchased the remaininglands from their relatives and were paying land revenue tothe Government and enjoying the lands with full rights. The said Beeramanu Khandriga was an under-tenure village in the erstwhile abolished Venkatagiri Estate. According to the Divisional Forest Officer, Social ForestryDivision, Nellore (in his letter Rc.No.539/2011/S1 dt.03-11-2012 addressed to the Chief Conservator of Forests,Planning and Extension Circle, Guntur) (Ex.P-13), thepetitioner’s predecessors had applied under Section 15(1) of the Act for patta and it was rejected by the AssistantSettlement Officer in MRSR.313/51 dt.17-09-1951 initially.

35. But when Krishna Rao and others filed appealA.S.No.178 of 1956 before the Estate Abolition Tribunaland District Judge, Nellore, the decision of the AdditionalAssistant Settlement Officer, Nellore under Section 15(1)of the Act was set aside on 24-08-1957 by the Tribunal inthe above appeal and a direction was issued to theGovernment of Andhra Pradesh (which was therespondent therein) to issue ryotwari patta in respect ofthe entire extent of Beermanu Khandriga in SullurpetTaluq, Nellore District. No doubt the said order came tobe passed since the Government Pleader did not opposethe appeal. Notwithstanding the same, in view of clause(a) of sub-Section (2) of Section 15, the said decision hasattained finality and is immune from challenge in anyCourt of law.

36. Therefore it is not open for respondents (including the State of Andhra Pradesh which was a respondent inA.S.No.178 of 1956) to question the correctness of thesame either on the ground that the sale deeds of theparties therein pertain to 1945 and 1956, or on the groundthat Survey Numbers are not mentioned in the sale deedsor on the ground that the said order was not on merits andwas only passed on the basis of concession of theGovernment Pleader. It is not open to the respondents toquestion the same by way of counter-affidavit in this WritPetition collaterally without having questioned it by way ofjudicial review at the time when the said order waspassed.

37. Out of the total extent of Ac.160.00 claimed by thepetitioners through Krishna Rao and others, it isundisputed that for an extent of Ac.105.74 cents wasimplemented under patta No.96 of Biradawada village bythe Revenue authorities and that the balance of Ac.54.26cents belonging to Beeramanu Khandriga Agraharam wasmerged with Sy.No.112 of Biradawada village. Thesefacts are stated in the proceedings Rc.B-10/2009 dt.08-04-2011 of the Tahsildar, Naidupet Mandal addressed tothe District Collector, Nellore District and also in theproceedings Rc.E-14/5464/06 dt.12-09-2011 of the JointCollector-cum-Settlement Officer, Nellore District.

38. In this Writ Petition we are concerned with an extentof Ac.26.00 forming part of Ac.54.26 cents in whichplantations were raised by the Social Forestry Divisionand in respect of which petitioners seek recovery ofpossession from the respondents.

39. It may be that there was a proposal to constitute theRossanur Forest Block as a Reserved Forest under theprovisions of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Forest Act, 1882 videG.O.Ms.No.1745 Food and Agriculture dt.31-08-1963including the Sy.No.112 of Biradawada village, but thesame Department issued Memo No.4422/For.I/70-19dt.01-05-1972 excluding Ac.613.00 in Sy.No.112 ofBiradawada along with other land from the proposedReservation of Rossanur Reserve Forest. The ForestSettlement Officer, Nellore in this letter Rc.No.25/64-Cdt.31-01-1974 addressed to the Chief Conservator ofForests, Andhra Pradesh specifically records that theGovernment had ordered de-reservation of Ac.613.00 inSy.No.112 of Biradawada village along with other land forrehabilitation of displaced persons in Sriharikota inconnection with installation of East Coast Rocket Rangeand that only an extent of Ac.1713.70 cents be notifiedunder Section 15 of the A.P. Forests Act in the RosanurForest Block. Thus when the final notification was issued under Section 15 of the A.P. Forests Act videG.O.Ms.No.978 Forests and Village Development (Forest-III) dt.03-11-1976 (published in the Nellore District Gazetteon 02-03-1977), this land in Sy.No.112 was clearlyexcluded from the Rosanur Forest Block. This can beseen from the sketch filed by the petitioners as Ex.P-6(page 43 of the material papers filed along with the WritPetition). In that sketch the land in Sy.No.112 is shown asthe eastern boundary of the Rosanur Forest Block but notinside it. This fact is clearly admitted in para-30 of thecounter-affidavit filed by the respondents by stating “asverified from the gazette notification and block map ofRosanuru Reserve Forest as available in this office aswell as in Forest Settlement Records, it is noticed that,Sy.No.112 of Biradawada (V) was excluded and theEastern boundary to Rosanuru Reserve Forest fromStation No.43 to 47 runs along the Western boundary ofSy.No.112 of Biradawada village.” The location map filedalong with the counter-affidavit by respondents also showthat the land in Sy.No.112 of Biradawada village and inparticular the subject land of Ac.26.00 falls outside theRosanur Reserve Forest Block and not inside it.

40. The respondents have no where disputed the MemoNo.4422/For.I/70-19 dt.01-05-1972 nor the proceedings

Rc.E.14/5464/06 dt.12-09-2011 of the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Nellore District which clearlyprove that the subject land in Sy.No.112 of Biradawadavillage was never included in the Rosanur Reserve ForestBlock. Therefore their plea in para-6 of the counter thatthe petitioners did not make any claims over the land inSy.No.112 to be included in the Rosanur Block before theForest Settlement Officer or that such claims were notallowed by him or that he had not excluded lands ofBiradawada village in favour of any of the petitioners istotally meaningless and un-understandable. Their pleathat the exclusion of Sy.No.112 was not in favour of thepetitioners but for a totally different purpose and on totallydifferent grounds (for rehabilitation of displaced persons inSriharikota in connection with installation of East CoastRocket Range) also cannot be countenanced, becausewhatever be the reason for exclusion of land in Sy.No.112of Biradawada village from the Rosanur Reserve ForestBlock, the fact remains that it was excluded and nevernotified in the final notification under Section 15 of the A.P.Forest Act. Therefore it cannot be termed to be forestland.

41. Their further plea that the petitioners are not entitledto seek any relief for grant of ryotwari pattas since petitioners were not in continuous possession andenjoyment of the subject land from 1994-95 is without anymerit because the Estate Abolition Tribunal had alreadydirected the 1[st] respondent in its order dt.24-08-1957 inA.S.No.178 of 1956 to grant ryotwari pattas to thepetitioners’ predecessors. This order has attained finalityunder Sec.15(2) (a) of the Act and therefore merereliance on Section 13 of the Act cannot over-turn the saiddecision and come to the aid of the respondents. TheRevenue authorities have accepted and implementedpartly the decision of the estates Abolition Tribunal, butthe Forest Department Officials, who are also part of theGovernment of Andhra Pradesh, which was a party to thesaid decision, are now trying to defeat by raisinguntenable pleas.

42. Although it is contended that the subject land isrecorded as ‘Adavi poramboke’ in the Revenue Recordsat one point of time and therefore it attracts the provisionsof Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the said plea cannotassist the respondents for the reason that long prior to thecoming into force of the said Act, the Estate AbolitionTribunal has held that the subject land is a ryoti land andthat Krishnarao and others are entitled to ryotwari pattaand the said decision was given finality by sub-Section 2(a) of Section 15 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estate(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.

43. The District Collector, Nellore in his letterRc.E14/5464/2006 dt.03-09-2014 addressed to thePrincipal Chief Conservator of Forests has correctly heldthat the petitioners are seeking implementation of thedecision of the Estate Abolition Tribunal granted on 24-08-1957 in the above appeal, that the Forest (Conservation)Act, 1980 does not come in the way of the implementationof the said decision since it came into operation long afterthe said decision was rendered. Since it is not disputedthat land in Sy. No.112 of Biradawada village was notincluded in the final notification issued under Section 15 ofthe AP Forest Act, 1967 also, it is not open to therespondents to contend that it is forest land merelybecause they raised some plantation therein.

44. In fact the Joint Collector –cum- Settlement Officer,Nellore in his proceedings Rc.E.14/5464/06 dt.12-09-2011has stated that although the decision of the EstateAbolition Tribunal in A.S.No.178 of 1956 was notimplemented in the village records as patta land, it isunder cultivation by the petitioners and their familymembers who are growing plantations of mango, casurinaand Eucalyptus and that the entire extent was under their

cultivation, possession and also enjoyment. He alsorecorded that the Tahsildar, Naidupeta as well as elders inthe village of Biradawada have corroborated the fact thatthe land is in possession of the petitioner and his familymembers and that he himself personally inspected thelands on 12-11-2010. In his letter dt.08-10-2012addressed to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,the Chief Conservator of Forests himself recorded that ajoint inspection of Ac.54.23 cts including the subject landof Ac.26.00 cts was done by the officials of Revenue andForest Departments, that boundaries were fixed and thatthe M.R.O, Naidupet vide proceedings Rc.No.480/2012dt.28-08-2012 addressed to the FRO (SF), Naidupet hadinformed that the land is classified as “gayalu” in villagerecords (fair adangal), although he noted that there wereplantations raised in this Ac.26.00 cts in the past and hesuggested that compensation be collected from thepetitioners for the value of forest produce estimated by thedepartment since the petitioners are owners of the saidland.

45. No doubt in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad Vs.

Union of India[[1]]T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad (1supra), the Supreme Court had observed that the term‘forest land’ occurring in Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, will not only include ‘forest’ asunderstood in the dictionary sense, but also any arearecorded as ‘forest’ in the government record irrespectiveof the ownership. But this cannot be stretched to asituation where the State Government itself had excludedfrom the Rosanooru Forest Block, the land in Sy. No.112of Biradawada village in the Final Notification issuedunder Section 15 of the AP Forest Act, 1967 videG.O.Ms.No.978 Forest and Village Development(Forest.III) dt.03-11-1976 published in the Nellore DistrictGazette on 02-03-1977 and there was a decision underSection 15 of the AP (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition andConversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 declaring the land asryoti land implying that it is not a forest land which decisionis given finality by Section 15 (2) (a) of the said Act.

46. In N.Rajagopala Reddy Vs. District Collector[[2]],a learned Single Judge of this Court had occasion toconsider a similar situation where after a ForestSettlement Officer excluded the petitioner’s land from theforest block of Mittur on the ground that they were pattalands, the State Government did not implement the saidorder. The petitioner had questioned the non-implementation of the same in W.P.No.7791 of 1984 andthis Court had directed the Government to delete the

lands in question from the notification constituting areserved forest of Mittur. This decision was also notimplemented. So petitioner was forced to file another WritPetition. The State relied upon the Forest ConservationAct, 1980 and contended that without prior approval of theCentral Government, the State Government cannotexclude the land and that was why the order of this Courtin the Writ Petition No.7791 of 1984 was notimplemented. This Court rejected the said submissionstating that the State Government was expected to followa procedure to constitute a reserve forest, that the ForestSettlement Officer himself had held in favour of thepetitioner and directed deletion of his land afterentertaining the objections of the petitioner to thenotification issued under the AP Forest Act, 1967 and theState cannot contend that the Forest (Conservation) Actapplies to all forest lands and not necessarily only toreserve forest lands, and the settlement officer’s decisionthat the petitioner’s lands are agricultural lands cannot bere-agitated by the State. This judgment applies to thepresent case also in view of the similarity of the facts.

47. Therefore in my opinion, once the Estates AbolitionTribunal had declared the extent of Ac160 in Sy.No.112 tobe ryoti land, and the State of A.P is a party to it, it is bound by it and cannot seek to reopen it. More so whenthe State itself had deleted Ac.613 in Sy.NO.112 ofBiradawada Village from the Rossanur Forest Block finalnotification way back in 1970 and 1973.

48. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and therespondents are directed to deliver possession of theextent of Ac.26.00 cts in Sy. Nos.112/8, 112/9 and 112/10to 112/14 to the petitioners subject to the petitioners’paying to the respondents compensation for theplantations raised by the respondents therein asassessed by the 3[rd] respondent within four weeks fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order. Therespondents shall also pay costs of Rs.5,000/- (RupeesFive Thousand only) to the petitioners within four weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

49. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any,in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

___________________________________

JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAODate: 31-12-2015 Vsv/Ndr/*

[2]1999 (5) ALD 5861999 (5) ALD 586