Back
2000(6) Supreme 30
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
D.P. Mohapatra and R.P. Sethi, JJ.
D. Ramakrishna Reddy & Ors. -Appellants
versus
The Addl. Revenue Divisional Officers & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 9617-18 of 1995
With
Civil Appeal No. 3012 of 1987
Decided on 18-8-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : S. Subba Rao, Anil Kumar Tandale and P. Venkata Reddy, Advocates.
From the conspectus of the relevant provisions in the Act and the Rules noted in the proceeding paragraph it is clear that the surplus land which is surrendered or deemed to have been surrendered shall vest in the State on communication of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer to take over possession of such land to the owner/holder/occupier of the said land. The word thereupon in Section 11 refers to such order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The order in Form IX and the manner in which the said order will be served on the owner are prescribed in sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 8. The provisions incorporated in sub-rule (3) to (7) of the said rule are steps to be taken after the surplus land has vested in the State. Vesting of the surplus land in the State is not dependent on taking over physical possession of the land which may be immediately after the vesting or sometimes subsequent thereto. It is our considered view that this conclusion emanates from a harmonious construction of the provisions in Section 11 and Rule 8 and it is in accord with the object and purpose of the Act. (Para 15)
Regarding payment of compensation for the standing trees or any other forest produce on the land vested in the State Government, our attention has not been drawn to any provision in the Act or in the Rules for payment of such sum. Section 15 of the Act makes provision regarding the amount payable for any land vested in the Government under the Act which is to be calculated at the rates specified in the second schedule. Section 16 makes provision regarding claims of amount payable which is to be determined by the Tribunal. In Rule 11 is incorporated the provision for fixation of value for fruit bearing trees and structures. There being no provision in the Act or Rules for payment of any sum for the trees (other than fruit bearing trees) or any other forest produce on the vested land, no claim for compensation for the trees or other forest produce standing on the surplus land surrendered or deemed to have been surrendered arises under the provisions of the Act or the Rule. The tribunals are creatures of the Act and it is not open to them to travel beyond the provisions of the statute. The High Court while examining the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the tribunal or any action taken by an officer under the Act is also to be guided by the provisions of the statute. (Para 16)
The question that remains to be considered is regarding grant of permit to the respondents for removal of the forest produce. In this regard, it is sufficient to state that even before vesting of the property in the State Government the holders of the land had no right for felling and removing the standing trees or other forest produce from the forest area. They could do so only on getting a permit from the competent officer of the Forest department of the State Government authorising them to fell and remove the trees or other forest produce. Grant of such permit was at the discretion of the competent officer and the power was to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the statute applicable in the matter and the rules framed in that regard. Therefore, no direction could be justifiably issued in the present proceedings which is relating to vesting of surplus land under the Act, for felling and/or removal of any forest produce from forest area. The resultant position from the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs is that the judgment of the Division Bench confirming the judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court, that forest produce did not vest in the Government and that the landholders are entitled to compensation is unsustainable. (Paras 17 & 18)
JUDGMENT
D.P. Mohapatra, J.-These three appeals filed on the basis of the certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh involve common questions of facts and law. Therefore, they were heard together and they are being disposed of by this Judgment. Civil Appeal No. 3012 of 1987 filed by the Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad Division and the Divisional Forest Officer, Kama Reddy, is directed against the Judgment of the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 731 of 1982, whereas Civil Appeal Nos. 9617-18/95 filed by D. Ramakrishna Reddy and four others are directed against the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 790 and 676 of 1982. All the writ appeals were filed against the judgment dated 22.4.1982 passed by the Learned Single Judge disposing of Writ Petition Nos. 5793 of 1979 and 637 of 1982. Both these Writ Petitions were filed by D. Ramakrishna Reddy and Others assailing the taking over possession of surplus lands from them under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling and Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (Act I of 1973). The specific controversy raised in the cases related to the right of the petitioners to cut and remove trees from the forest area which was a part of the surplus land. The case of the petitioners, as appears from the discussions in the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, was that the forest land, though a part of the surplus land in their hands had not vested in the State Government, and therefore, they were entitled to cut and remove the trees standing on the said land before handing over possession of the land to the State Government. The writ petitioners also pleaded that long before the land was declared surplus with them, they had moved the competent authority of the Forest department for grant of transit permits to them for cutting and removing the standing trees. The authorities set over the matter and did not issue the requisite transit permit. Therefore, the writ petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the authorities concerned to issue necessary transit permit.
2. The State Government, particularly the Officers concerned of the Forest Department, contested the case mainly on the grounds that the entire surplus land in the hands of the writ petitioners had vested in the State Government along with the forest growth on a portion of the same. The lands including the trees and other forest produce were the property of the State Government and the writ petitioners had no right to cut and remove the trees on any portion of the surplus land which had vested in the State Government.
3. The learned Single Judge, considering the case of the parties, formulated the following questions for determination :
1. When does the land surrendered by the landholder vest in the State?
2. Whether the forest produce standing on the land surrendered also vests in the State alongwith the land? and
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief on the ground that they had been approaching for the last several years for permits to cut and remove the forest produce on the said land, but were prevented from doing so on account of in-action on the part of or wrong orders passed by the officers of the Forest Department?
The learned Single Judge divided the writ petitioners into three categories; in the first category were included petitioners D. Narasimha Reddy and D. Venkata Reddy, the second category related to D. Ramakrishna Reddy and the third category related to petitioners G. Laxma Reddy and G. Bhoopal Reddy. The appellants herein who were included in the first category surrendered the surplus land in their possession on 1.3.1979. Regarding the second category, the learned Single Judge observed that the petitioner had neither surrendered the surplus land nor possession had been taken by following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the rules, though no
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
