2019 Supreme(Telangana) 362

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.NAVEEN RAO, J.
Kunja Nagaiah, S/o Nagaiah and Ors - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary and Ors - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.30, 108, 110, 111, 113, 115, 118, 121, 145, 150, 151, 155, 169, 187, 355, 356, 357 and 364 of 2019
Decided On : 13-12-2019

Point of Law :
Writ Court may refuse to grant relief in a case where justice and larger public interest require denial of such relief as compared to grievance of an individual, even assuming there is breach of natural justice/statutory prescription writ Court do not issue futile writs. It must be exercised with great caution and only in furtherance of public interest or to set right grave illegality. Larger public interest must be kept in mind to decide whether intervention of the court is called for in a given case, more so when community properties are involved

Headnote:

Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli - Section 33 - Telangana Forest Act, 1967 - Section 26 - Cancellation of assignments - Disclose petitioner claims - Material averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition disclose petitioner claims to belong to Koya community living in village, a village located in agency area. His grand father was granted patta - After death of his father and grand father, he succeeded to the property and is cultivating the land. Earlier, when forest officials were trying to interfere in the possession, some of the patta holders filed W.P. - Said Writ Petition was disposed of by order directing forest officials not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the subject land unless pattas granted to them were cancelled - Averments further disclose that the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted enquiry and submitted his report to the District Collector vide his letter -

Finding of the Court:

Guided by the plethora of precedent decisions, it is seen that in the cases on hand land in issue is reserved forest land. The reserve forest land vests in Forest Department and designated authority of Forest Department is custodian. The reserve forest land cannot be used/diverted for any purpose other than development of forest growth. Revenue authorities have no competence to deal with forest land and assign such land. Section 33 of Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli does not give free licence to revenue authorities and is subject to Act, 1927, Act, 1967 and Act, 1980 and subject to overarching public interest and public trust doctrine. From long time possession vested in the Forest Department. Thus, merely on the ground that after long lapse of time power is exercised to cancel the assignment cannot enure to the benefit of petitioners as granting relief to petitioners would result in restoring another illegal decision. More so, when possession is not proved on contest with Forest Department - Permitting petitioners to cultivate land in reserved forest is against public interest - Prayers sought in the Writ Petitions cannot be granted - Petitioners are otherwise entitled to assignment of land, they may apply to the competent authority. Not with standing dismissal of these writ petitions -

Result: Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed