THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22134 of 2014 Dated: 10.12.2014 Between:
Smt. Patoju Indira Devi and others .. Petitioners and Union of India, Rep. by Deputy Secretary, Forest Department, New Delhi and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. M.V. Hanumantha Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr. K.L.N. Raghavender Reddy for Mr. B. Narayana Reddy Counsel for respondents 2,7&8: AGP for Forests Counsel for respondents 3 to 6: AGP for Revenue The court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed with the grievance that the petition dated 03.05.1972 filed by Sri Patoju Veerabhadra Rao, the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners 2 to 4, for grant of ryotwari patta, is not being disposed of by respondent No.7.
On 10.10.2014, this Court has granted time to the Assistant Government Pleader for Forests (A.P.) for instructions on the status of the purported application of the said Veerabhadra Rao stated to have been filed for grant of ryotwari patta. On 06.11.2014, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests submitted that the information received from the office of the Regional Forest Officer, Visakhapatnam, is silent on the material aspect as to whether the purported petition dated 03.05.1972 is pending before respondent No.7 or not. In view of the same, this Court, while adjourning the matter to 17.11.2014, has directed that if the required information is not furnished by that date, respondent No.7 shall have to be personally present before the Court on the said date. On 17.11.2014, respondent No.7 was personally present and the learned Government Pleader for Forests has submitted that respondent No.8 is the in-charge of the case and that despite his request to respondent No.8, no instructions have been sent by him. Therefore, this Court has dispensed with the presence of respondent No.7 and directed respondent No.8 to be personally present. On 24.11.2014, respondent No.8 was personally present. She has stated that in spite of a thorough search of her office, the file relating to the purported application of Sri P. Veerabhadra Rao could not be traced. Therefore, this Court has directed respondent No.8 to secure information from the Public Information Officer and District Revenue Officer, the Collector’s office, Srikakulam, who had issued endorsement dated 19.11.2013, wherein he has stated that he was furnishing information relating to the A-Register and the claim made by Sri P. Veerabhadra Rao. She was also directed to file an affidavit based on such information.
Accordingly, respondent No.8 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein she has inter alia stated that the District Collector has furnished the original petition dated 03.05.1972 filed by Sri P. Veerabhadra Rao before the Settlement Officer, Srikakulam, along with some other ten petitions of that kind and also the original Estate ‘A’ Register of Kommadi Village. It is further stated that the original petition of Sri P. Veerabhadra Rao, without any enclosures, was received in the office of respondent No.8 on 04.12.2014 from the Collectorate, Visakhapatnam, and that it appears that no action on the said original petition was taken. It is further averred that from the perusal of the Settlement Fair Adangal of Kommadi Village, it appears that the subject lands covered by Sy.Nos.30, 31, 32, 141 and 142 are classified as Reserve Forest and that as such Sri P. Veerabhadra Rao might have filed his petition/claim under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Settlement Officer, but not before the Forest Settlement Officer, as the latter has no jurisdiction to entertain the claims for change of classification under Section 11(a) of the Act. It is further averred that after abolition of posts of Settlement Officers, the powers vested in the Settlement Officers have been delegated to the Joint Collectors.
Inasmuch as though the claim has been addressed to Forest Settlement Officer, the same was available in the office of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, it is reasonable to presume that Sri P. Veerabhadra Rao has presented his original petition dated 03.05.1972 before the Settlement Officer, Srikakulam, and with the creation of a separate division, the petition appeared to have been sent to the office of District Collector, Visakhapatnam, within whose jurisdiction the lands are situated.
As most of the offices of the Settlement Officers are stated to have been abolished and the Joint Collectors were delegated with the powers of Settlement Officers, respondent No.8 is directed to forward the original petition dated 03.05.1972 of Sri P. Veerabhadra Rao to the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam (not a party to this writ petition). The petitioners are permitted to come on record in place of Sri P. Veerabhadra Rao, by filing appropriate application before the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam. On such coming on record, the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, shall hold an enquiry under Section 11(a) of the Act and pass appropriate orders within three months of the petitioners filing application for coming on record.
Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.27757 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th December, 2014 IBL