The judgment mandates a re-survey to determine land ownership amidst claims of encroachment and conflicting surveys.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’) by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash proceedings against them in the Primary Offence Report (POR) NO.100 of 2004 on the file of the Forest Beat Officer, Yellaram, Range Kushnapally, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 2 0 (i)(C)(ii)(iii)(vii)(ix)(x) of the Telangana Forest Act , 1967 (for short ‘TSF Act) and Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act , 1980 (for short ‘FC Act’).

2. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation that the petitioners encroached upon forest land is completely false. He submitted that a survey and panchanama were conducted, and that there exists a dispute between the petitioners and the forest officials. He further submitted that the petitioners, along with several others, are pattedars of an extent of Ac.111.00 of land, and as per the official survey, an extent of Ac.105.00 in Survey No.25 is classified as forest land. The petitioners holds valid pattas in their names and have never encroached upon any forest land. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners are facing false allegations. Hence, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He contended that the petitioners, along with others, are involved in damaging the trenches and unlawfully occupying the notified forest land. He further submitted that the sketch plan available at page No.20 of the material papers clearly indicates the boundaries of the forest land, which has been classified as notified land. Despite this, it is alleged that the petitioners have been removing the trenches demarcating the forest area.

Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record. It is observed that both the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the sketch map. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the pattedars of the abutting lands, whereas the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the petitioners are encroaching upon the notified forest land. The record indicates that the forest land has been clearly demarcated, and there should be no dispute regarding the extent of the forest land. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioners have themselves admitted that an extent of Ac.105.00 is notified as forest land. The material on record further reveals that a joint survey was earlier conducted by the Revenue Officials and Forest Officials in the presence of petitioners and some others, pursuant to which the land was demarcated, and it was concluded that a total extent of Ac.105.01 is under the possession of the Forest Department. Despite the said panchanama, the alleged incident has occurred.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is opined that a fresh joint survey should be conducted by the Revenue and Forest Officials, in the presence of police authorities, to once again demarcate the land belonging to the Forest Department and to put an end to the dispute.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of with a direction that a re-survey of the subject land shall be conducted by the Revenue Officials in coordination with the Forest Department and in the presence of the Police Department.