GULAM INTIOZUDDIN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FOREST AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner own patta lands in Manchala n Batasingaram villages, previously in Hyderabad district, now in Rangareddy district. There are neem, babul, mango, durisanam and tamarind trees in those lands. They have to obtain the permission of the Forest authorities to fell the tamarind and durisanam trees or sell or transport the wood or other products of those trees under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, and Andhra Pradesh Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970. They complain that the restrictions imposed by the rules have become very irksome and they are not able to dispose of the timber or the produce of those trees standing in their lands. Therefore, they have filed this writ petition to quash G. O. Ms. No. 697 Forest and Rural Development dated 3 1/03/1976 and G. O. Ms. No. 165 Forest and Rural Development dated 2 3/02/1979. 0

(2.) Firstly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 is not applicable to private lands of the petitioners, for they are not forests. Secondly. Sections 28-A and 28-B are unconstitutional, for they confer unbridled power upon the Government and impose illegal and unwarranted restrictions upon the rights of the petitioners guaranteed to them under Article 19 (1) (g) and Article 31 (1) of the Constitution of India. Thirdly, in the Andhra Pradesh Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970, made in G. O. Ms. Number 356 dated 4/03/1970, certain items of trees including the mango, neem, tamarind and babul were exempted in Hyderabad district under R.16; again in G. O. Ms. No. 697 dated 31/03/1976 by an amendment, those trees were deleted. It is submitted that the said deletion by virtue of the amendment to the Rules made in G. O. Ms. No. 426 dated 17/06/1978, these species of trees were again substituted and thereafter in G. O. Ms. No. 165 dated 23/02/1979 by which date Rangareddy revenue district was formed, these species were included in that district and it is arbitrary and not valid.

(3.) Though it was urged in the writ petition that the amended rules were not placed before both the Houses of the State Legislature as contemplated by Section 68 (3) of the Act, it was subsequently given up, in view of the statement in the counter-affidavit filed of the Forest Department that the amended rules were placed on the able of each House of the State Legislature.