K R RAMESH KUMAR, S/O LATE RAMAIAH Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY; CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 26.03.2012 passed in R.A.No.169/2011. The said order is impugned at Annexure-Z to the petition. By the said order, the respondent No.2 has upheld the order passed by the competent authority holding that the petitioner has encroached upon the forest land. The present case has a checkered history inasmuch as several rounds of litigation has been resorted to by the parties herein. Presently, the impugned order herein is an order which has been passed after this Court by the order dated 16.12.2010 in W.P.No.39676/2010 had remitted the matter with specific directions with regard to the manner of holding survey and thereafter come to a conclusion.

(2.) The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made some reference to the merits of the contention with regard to the fact that the petitioner had purchased the land and in fact had voluntarily requested the respondents to fix the boundaries and in that context would contend that the property purchased is revenue land. The learned Senior counsel would at the outset also contend that notwithstanding the contention putforth on the merits, this Court would have to consider as to whether the order impugned herein would be sustainable, when a survey has been conducted by the respondents contrary to the directions issued by this Court. In that view of the matter, I have heard the learned Senior counsel as well as the learned Government advocate on this aspect of the matter.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate would submit that the Deputy Commissioner of the District though was not present at the time of the survey, that in itself would not prejudice the subsequent action inasmuch as the survey has been conducted in the presence of the Officers of the three departments which has been referred to by the learned single Judge in the earlier order. It is also contended that the petitioner himself did not remain present when the survey was conducted, but he was represented by his brother who failed to sign the documents and has also not objected to the manner in which survey was conducted and therefore the petitioner cannot urge the said contention in the instant petition.