HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
CONTEMPT CASE No.476 of 2014
in
WRIT PETITION No.20315 of 2006
Date: June 30, 2014
Between:
1. Athukuri Akkabayamma & 5 others.
… Petitioners And
1. Sri S. Rajasekhar, Divisional Forest Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist & 2 others.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.476 of 2014 in
WRIT PETITION No.20315 of 2006
O R D E R:
This contempt case was filed alleging non-implementation of the order dated 14.10.2008 of this Court in W.P.No.20315 of 2006. This Court in the said writ petition passed the following order:
“In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners to file their objections to the 4 (1) notification, dated 13.08.1969, before the Forest Settlement Officer within a period of four weeks and thereafter, the Forest Settlement Officer shall conduct the enquiry, as provided under Section 8 of the Act, before issuing final notification under Section 15 of the Act. Status quo existing as on this day with regard to possession of the land shall be maintained till the notification under Section 15 of the Act is issued.”
2. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the enquiry before the Forest Settlement Officer is going on and no final notification was issued under Section 15 of the Act. In the meanwhile the respondents are interfering with the possession of the petitioners.
3. In this contempt case, the Tahsildar, Chatrai Manndal, filed an affidavit stating that the pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued to the land owners and their names were recorded as pattadars and enjoyers in the revenue records. On enquiry it was revealed that the land admeasuring Ac.72.71 cents in R.S.Nos.355/1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 is kept as waste (beedu) since 2008 and the same was recorded in the adangal. An additional counter-affidavit is also filed stating that the pattadars are not in physical possession of the above said land.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that in respect of beedu land no agricultural operations take place and except on the basis of revenue records the possession cannot be decided. Since the names of the petitioners are recorded in the revenue records, it is deemed that they are in possession of the land.
5. It is clear from the record that the enquiry before the Forest Settlement Officer is going on and no final notification was issued as on today. The names of the petitioners are finding place in the revenue records and the land is kept as waste. Till a final notification is issued, the respondents shall not interfere with the possession of land of the petitioners as ordered by this Court in W.P.No.20315 of 2006 on 14.10.2008. As in the said order this Court directed status quo should be maintained till a notification under Section 15 of the Act is issued, the same shall be maintained.
6. The contempt case is accordingly closed. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: June 30, 2014 BSB
5 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
CONTEMPT CASE No.476 of 2014
in
WRIT PETITION No.20315 of 2006
Date: June 30, 2014
BSB