IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the probative value of the Gazette Notification under the Forest Act and the implications of the bar on entertaining suits during the notification period. The court emphasized the vested rights of the Government over reserved forest areas and the lack of validity of the sale deeds in the absence of a valid title from the vendor.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by the Government Pleader (for short “GP”) for Appeals, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad against the order and decree passed in O.S.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, dated 10.10.2011.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs.

3. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court.

4. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs initially for grant of permanent injunction and subsequently amended seeking the relief of declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff No.1 is the elder sister of plaintiff No.2. The suit schedule property was Ac.12-27gts.in Survey No.46, Hanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. The suit schedule “A” land was to an extent of Ac.10-00gts. in Survey No.46 and suit schedule “B” land was to an extent of Ac.2-27gts. in Survey No.46. “A” schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff No.1 and “B” schedule property was purchased by plaintiff No.2 from the original owner of Shaik Habeeb Mohammed and from the legal representative of protected tenant Ippali Thimmaiah by name Ippali Shankaraiah on 07.12.2006 under registered sale deed document Nos.8557 of 2006 and 8558 of 2006. They contended was that the land was delivered to them on the same day and they submitted an application before the MRO, Hanwada Mandal for mutation of ownership and accordingly their names were recorded as owners in the revenue records. They further submitted that on their application on 17.03.2007, the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records, Mahabubnagar inspected and measured the suit lands with the help of plan and tippon and fixed the boundary stones around the suit lands. The Inspector conducted a panchanama and prepared a sketch map of the suit lands. Forest land was situated on the eastern and southern side of the suit "A" schedule land and on southern and western side of the suit "B" schedule land. The plaintiffs further submitted that they kept the suit schedule property fallow. By taking it as an advantage, the subordinates of defendant No.2 came to the suit lands on 12.01.2008 and tried to interfere by making preparation for plantation on the southern and western side of the suit lands. The plaintiffs resisted their acts and maintained their possession and filed initially the suit for injunction against the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector as defendant No.1 and the Divisional Forest Officer, Mahabubnagar District as defendant No.2.

4.1. After filing written statement by the defendants denying the title, the plaintiffs amended the relief of suit claim from injunction to declaration of title submitting that the old ROR of 1986 as well as the pahani for the year 2003-04 would reveal that Shaik Ameena Bee W/o.Shaik Mahabub was the owner and possessor of the land in Survey No.46 to an extent of Ac.12-27gts. After the death of Shaik Ameena Bee, her son namely Shaik Habeeb Mohammed’s name was recorded in the pahani for the year 2004-05 and in ROR proceeding No.B/848/2006 dated 12.06.2007 of Tahsildar, Hanwada and the same was also recorded in the pahani for the year 2005-06. The plaintiffs purchased the suit lands from the said Shaik Habeeb Mohammed. The contention of defendant No.2 that the land in Survey No.46 was acquired for reserve forest and in lieu of the acquired land in Survey No.46, the original owner Syed Qamruddin was allotted the land in Survey Nos.61 and 157 to an extent of Ac.35-11gts. of Ammapur Village was incorrect. The land in Survey No.61 belonged to Lord Venkateshwara Swamy Temple and the same was an endowment land. The land in Survey No.157 of Ammapur Village was not available.

5. The defendant No.2 filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendant No.1. The defendant No.2 contended that the suit land bearing Survey No.46 to an extent of Ac.12-07gts. was included in the Reserve Forest Block as notified under Secti