Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3528
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J
CH VENKATA GIRIRSH – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP 9217/2020
UTTARA LEGAL, GP FOR FORESTS, GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY
Authorities cannot alter land status under the A.P. Forest Act without following the statutory procedure outlined in Sections 4 and 15.
Headnote:(A) A.P. Forest Act, 1967 - Sections 4 and 15 - Writ petitions challenging the letter regarding quarry operations on land claimed to be outside reserve forest area - The petitioner was granted a quarry lease for 20 years, confirmed by multiple surveys indicating the land is outside the reserve forest - The impugned proceedings were set aside as the authorities lacked jurisdiction to alter the land status without following due process. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Jurisdiction - Authorities under the A.P. Forest Act cannot alter land status without following the procedure laid down in Sections 4 and 15 - The notification under these sections serves as conclusive proof of reserve forest boundaries. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was granted a quarry lease for extraction of granite on land confirmed to be outside the reserve forest area by various surveys. The 4th respondent issued a letter requiring further inspection, which the petitioner challenged.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the impugned proceedings were issued without jurisdiction and confirmed the land's status as outside the reserve forest area.
Issues: The main issue was whether the authorities could alter the land's status without following the statutory procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the notification under the A.P. Forest Act is conclusive proof of reserve forest boundaries, and any alteration requires adherence to the statutory process.
Result: Writ Petitions allowed.
COMMON ORDER:-
The Writ Petitions are filed challenging the letter issued by the 4th respondent dated 23-06-2020 in respect of the subject land of an extent of 5.310 hectares in S.No.305 and 307 of Thotakurapalem Village,Ravikamatam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, and in interfering with the quarry operations in an extent of 5.310 Hectares in S.No.305 and 307 and 7.00 Hectares in S.No. 307 of Thotakurapalem Village, Ravikamatam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. It is contended that the petitioner was granted a quarry lease for extraction of colour granite in respect of the subject land for a period of twenty years, with effect from 27-06-2012 to 26-06-2032. After execution of the sale deed, the forest department and revenue department conducted a joint survey, and the land was found, vide proceedings dated 24-09-2012, to be falling outside the reserve forest area. A further joint survey was conducted on 03-09-2012, in the said survey, the subject land was also found to be outside the forest area.
3. Thereafter, on 25-11-2014, respondent No.2 addressed a letter to respondent No.4 stating that the proposed quarry area in the subject land would fall outside the forest area; however, it was observed that a buffer of 7.5 meters from the Reserve Forest Boundary line should be maintained. The Forest Survey Officer also conducted a survey and found that the subject land is out of the reserved forest area. However, the Divisional Manager of the AP Forest Development Corporation directed a further survey. The 5th respondent, vide his letter dated 17.11.2017, submitted a report stating that no further joint surveys are required. The 4th respondent, however, issued impugned proceedings in the Writ Petition dated 23-06-2020 to the 3rd respondent, the 5th respondent and the RDO, stating that a joint inspection is required to be conducted as per the letter of the Divisional Forest Officer.
4. Challenging the said proceedings, the Writ Petition is filed. It is contended that in terms of the proceedings dated 27-06-2012, the petitioner was granted mining for a period of twenty years commencing from 27-06-2012. As noted from the survey reports of the Revenue Department dated 3-09-2012 joint inspection reports, the subject land is revenue land. The Divisional Forest Officer, vide his proceedings dated 25-11-2014, informed the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology that the subject land is falling outside the forest area limits; however, he observed that a distance of 7.5 meters should be maintained from the Reserve Forest Boundary.
5. The Divisional Forest Officer further vide his letter dated 25.11.2015, further informed the Divisional Manager, APFDC, that the subject land falls outside the reserve forest area and that the lease holder has constructed the boundary pillars, leaving a distance of 7.50 meters from the boundary of the forest.
6. The Divisional Forest Officer, the 3rd respondent herein, filed his counter affidavit stating that the inspection staff did not identify the error in the notification at the early stage and by mistake, the DFO has issued a letter stating that the mining area falls outside the forest boundary. It is further stated that there was a typographical error in mentioning the traverse. In the counter affidavit, the Divisional Forest Officer has stated as follows:
“In this regard it is submitted that, before issuance of Section 4 Notification on 25.02.1958 a detailed survey was carried out to declare Pangidi as Reserve Forest, and at that time the survey was conducted with chain and compass and the Traverse Field Book for Pangidi Reserved Forest was prepared. In the said field book, the traverse between Station No.77 to 78 is mentioned as 343½° magnetic bearing with 474 links distance. But while the Notification u/s 4 was published, due to typographical mistake, the Traverse mentioned as i.e., 242½° instead of 343½°. At the time of Sec.15 Notification, no further survey was conducted and traverse as was in Sec.4 Notificat
