HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.38024 of 2013 Date : 30-12-2014 Between :
Chokka Vidya Sagar ..
Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ..
Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Mr. S. Appadhara Reddy Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Forests (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside proceedings Rc.No.DOR 11/2013-14, dated 9-12-2013 of respondent No.2 whereby he has confiscated the petitioner’s tractor bearing No.AP-37-AZ-9349 (for short “the subject tractor”).
I have heard Mr. S. Appadhara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests (AP).
The Deputy Range Officer, Eluru has seized the subject tractor and registered a case in P.O.R.No.20, on 9- 8-2013 under Section 20(ii), (vii) and (x) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 when the subject tractor was deployed for ploughing land which is allegedly a part of Bhogole Reserve Forest in Bhogole Beat. A notice of enquiry was given to the petitioner, following which an enquiry was held and the impugned order of confiscation was passed.
The main defence of the petitioner before respondent No.2 was that his father Chokka Istrayya, has filed O.S.No.81 of 2009 wherein a decree for permanent injunction was passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi, restraining the forest officials from interfering with the enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule land until and unless they are evicted after due process of law if their applications for allotment of pattas were not considered. While considering the said decree, respondent No.2 has observed that on misinterpretation of the said decree, the petitioner’s father entered and ploughed the forest land and that therefore the subject tractor is liable for confiscation.
Along with the additional affidavit, the petitioner filed a copy of the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.81 of 2009 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi. The relevant portion of the said decree reads as under :
“That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed and the defendants and their subordinates are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule A&B properties, unless and until the defendants are able to evict them through due process of law and if their applications for allotment of pattas were not considered.”
It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that after the decree was passed any order for eviction of the father of the petitioner was passed. Therefore, the very seizure of the subject tractor is in violation of the above mentioned decree, what to say, of confiscation? Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have committed a serious illegality in ignoring the decree, registering a case and confiscating the subject tractor. Until and unless the petitioner’s father is evicted by following due process of law, he and his family members are entitled to enter into the land and cultivate the same and such an act does not constitute forest offence.
For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set- aside. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to forthwith release the subject tractor to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WVMP No.1882 of 2014 is disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 30-12-2014 AM