Back
2023 Supreme(Telangana) 695
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
C. Sumalatha, J.
N.Srinivasa Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 16268 of 2023
Decided On : 10-08-2023
IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner cannot be deprived of transport permits during the lease period if the subject property is not notified as 'Reserved Forest' or 'Protected Forest' under the Telangana Forest Act 1967.
Headnote:
Telangana Forest Act 1967 - Quarry Lease - Sec. 4, Sec. 24
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings directing the stoppage of transport permits as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner had been granted a quarry lease and was carrying out activities, but was directed to vacate the land due to alleged violation of the Telangana Forest Act 1967.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been granted a lease to conduct mining, but there was a dispute regarding the ownership of the land. The court held that as the subject property was not notified as 'Reserved Forest' or 'Protected Forest' under the Telangana Forest Act, the petitioner cannot be put to loss by stopping issuance of transport permits during the lease period.
Issues: Dispute over ownership of land, validity of the proceedings directing stoppage of transport permits, interpretation of the Telangana Forest Act 1967.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Sec. 4 and Sec. 24 of the Telangana Forest Act 1967, which specify the process for notification of land as 'Reserved Forest' or 'Protected Forest'. The court emphasized that as no notification had been issued, the petitioner cannot be deprived of transport permits during the lease period.
Final Decision: The court set aside the directions to stop issuance of transport permits and ordered that permits be issued following the Rules and Regulations in vogue, with liberty granted to the respondents to take steps on completion of joint survey.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned Senior counsel who argued on behalf of Mr.Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned counsel on record for the Writ Petitioner, Smt.S.Premalatha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries & Mines, who is representing Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri L.Sameer Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests, who is representing Respondent No.5.
2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the Court to issue an order, more particularly, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.111/2023/A2(ii), dtd. 17/5/2023, that were issued by the 5th respondent directing the 4th respondent to stop issuance of transport permits to the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to declare that the petitioner is entitled for getting dispatch permits.
3. Making his submission with regard to the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was granted quarry lease over an extent of 2 Hectares of land which is located in Sy.No.82 of Gowraram Village. The said lease was granted in consultation with the Department of Mines and Geology and also the Forest Department. Learned counsel also states that subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of the quarry lease. The said application was referred to the Tahsildar for issuance of No Objection Certificate and the Tahsildar issued No Objection Certificate. Learned counsel submits that the lease was renewed for a further period of twenty years and thus, the petitioner was carrying out the activities. However, a notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon his explanation as to why action should not be taken against him for violating the provisions of the Telangana Forest Act 1967. The petitioner was directed to vacate the land immediately. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner submitted his reply giving details of the lease that was granted in his favour. Learned counsel states that the 5th respondent, thereafter, through the impugned proceedings, directed the 4th respondent not to issue any transport permits for metal quarried till completion of joint survey. Learned counsel states that joint survey has to be conducted by the Forest Department in coordination with the Revenue Department and the petitioner has nothing to do with it and therefore, the petitioner cannot be put to loss by non-issuance of transport permits of metal quarried.
4. The submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests is that the petitioner was granted lease to conduct mining in the land located in Sy.No.82 of Gowraram Village. The new survey number corresponding to Sy.No.82 is Sy.No.127. The land in Sy.No.127 of Gowraram Village belongs to Forest Department and thus, the petitioner cannot carry on mining activities and hence, the impugned proceedings were issued which are justifiable.
5. In reply to the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner, by brining to the notice of this Court the documents submitted along with the counter by Respondent No.5, states that as per the information furnished by Forest Range Officer, Kodangal, the land in Sy.No.127 of Gowraram Village is un-notified. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests failed to deny the genuineness of the said information. When the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon Sec. 4 of the Telangana Forest Act, 1967, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests relied upon Sec. 24 of the same legislation. Sec. 4 of the Telangana Forest Act, 1967 reads as under:-
"4. Notification by Government:-
(1) Whenever it is proposed to constitute any land as a reserved forest, the Government shall publish a notification in the Telangana Gazette in the District Gazette concerned if any;
(a) specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of such land;
(b) declaring that it is proposed to constitute such land as reserved forest;
(c) appointing a Forest Settlement Officer to co
