D RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Vs. ADDITIONAL REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals filed on the basis of the certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh involve common questions of facts and law. Therefore, they were heard together and they are being disposed of by this Judgment. Civil Appeal No. 3012 of 1987 filed by the Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad Division and the Divisional Forest Officer, Kama Reddy, is directed against the Judgment of the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 731 of 1982, whereas Civil Appeals Nos. 9617-18/95 filed by D. Ramakrishna Reddy and four others are directed against the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeals Nos. 790 and 676 of 1982. All the writ appeals were filed against the judgment dated 22-4-1982 passed by the learned single Judge disposing of Writ Petitions Nos. 5793 of 1979 and 637 of 1982. Both these writ petitions were filed by D. Ramakrishna Reddy and others assailing the taking over possession of surplus land from them under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling and Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (Act I of 1973). The specific controversy raised in the cases related to the right of the petitioners to cut and remove trees from the forest area which was a part of the surplus land. The case of the petitioners, as appears from the discussions in the Judgment of the learned single Judge, was that the forest land, though a part of the surplus land in their hands had not vested in the State Government, and therefore, they were entitled to cut and remove the trees standing on the said land before handing over possession of the land to the State Government. The writ petitioners also pleaded that long before the land was declared surplus with them, they had moved the competent authority of the Forest department for grant of transit permits to them for cutting and removing the standing trees. The authorities sat over the matter and did not issue the requisite transit permit. Therefore, the writ petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the authorities concerned to issue necessary transit permit.

(2.) The State Government, particularly the Officers concerned of the Forest Department, contested the case mainly on the grounds that the entire surplus land in the hands of the writ petitioners had vested in the State Government along with the forest growth on a portion of the same. The land including the trees and other forest produce were the property of the State Government and the writ petitioners had no right to cut and remove the trees on any portion of the surplus land which had vested in the State Government.

(3.) The learned single Judge, considering the case of the parties, formulated the following questions for determination:-