BATTU RATNACHANDER Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This wit appeal is directed against a judgment dated 13-3-2001 passed by the learned single Judge in WP No.2258 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed. The said writ petition was filed seeking inter alia a writ of mandamus declaring the auction notice issued by the third respondent and allotting the mango and cashew yields and seeds to the non-tribal without following the procedure contemplated under the A.P Scheduled Area Land Transfers Regulations, 1959 and its amendment 1 of 1970 as illegal contrary to law and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

(2.) The sole question which arises for consideration is as to whether a wide publicity was given in terms of Regulation 4 of A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfers Regulations, 1959 as amended by Amendment Act No.1 of 1970. The fact of the matter is that the third respondent has issued a Notification of auction on 11-1-2001 for the yield of mango and cashew in the schedule area. According to the appellant, he was not aware of the said Notification as a result whereof, he could not participate in the auction. The appellant contends that he being a tribal member, the forest produce ought to have been offered to him first and denying an opportunity to the tribals to participate in the auction is wholly illegal. The learned single Judge arrived at a finding of a fact upon taking into consideration the statements made in the counter-affidavit that the details of plot numbers, location of gardens- species wise, number of trees etc., are mentioned in the sale notice dated 11-1-2001 and the same had been sent to all the Divisional Forest Officers in the circle; Conservator of Forests, Khammam, Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothagudem, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kothagudem Gram Panchayat, Chattakonda Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation Limited etc.

(3.) The learned single Judge further noticed that 15 days' time had been given from the date of notice of holding of auction and despite the communication and the wide publicity thereof, the petitioner-appellant did not participate in the auction.