RAMBHOTLA RAMANNA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1969-11-15
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 26,1969

RAMBHOTLA RAMANNA BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, T.V.RAMANUJARAO Appellant
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DUNCAN V. CAMMELL LARIED AND CO. LTD.,1942 AC 624 [REFERRED TO]
SMITH V. EAST INDIA CO. [REFERRED TO]
BEATSON V. SKENE [REFERRED TO]
HENNESSY V. WRIGHT [REFERRED TO]
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. NEW CASTLE UPON-TYNE CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO.LTD. V. ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL CO.LTD. [REFERRED TO]
IN RE,NUT BELL CASE [REFERRED TO]
BHALCHANDRA V. CHANASAPPA [REFERRED TO]
ROBINSON V. STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA [REFERRED TO]
R.V. LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF CHURCH ASSEMBLY [REFERRED TO]
R. V. ELECTRICITY COMMRS. [REFERRED TO]
IN RE,ZAMORA [REFERRED TO]
GLASGOW CORPORATION V. CENTRAL LAND BOARD,1956 (HL) 1 [REFERRED TO]
CONWAY V. RIMMER [REFERRED TO]
AMARCHAND BUTAIL V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SODHA SULCHDEV SINGH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

KANWAR LAL GUPTA VS. AMAR NATH CHAWLA [LAWS(DLH)-1972-1-11] [REFERRED]
RAJ NARAIN VS. INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI [LAWS(ALL)-1974-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
MUSKU ANANTHA REDDY VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1977-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
PROMUK HOFFMAN INTERNATIONAL LTD VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
D. VISHNU MURTHY VS. THE GOVT, OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-1978-4-19] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

Obul Reddi, J. - (1.)The question that falls for determination is, when a citizen moves this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a Writ of certiorari for quashing an order of the Government and when it issues a rule nisi calling for the records whether the Government can withhold production of documents for the perusal of the Court, claiming privilege and whether this Court has overriding power in view of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
(2.)it may be stated at the outset that the Government on account of some practice said to be prevalent from the days of the Composite State of Madras, do not forward the records called for directly to the Court, but seen them to the custody of the Law Officers, i.e., the Advocate-General or the Government Pleader, as the case maybe, and not all the records that are sent to the Advocate-General or the Government Pleader are placed at the disposal of the Court for its scrutiny at the time when the Writ petition comes up for hearing as more often than not the notes made of the opinions expressed by the Secretaries concerned or the Departmental heads or the Ministers relating to a claiming privilege under Section 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act on the ground that disclosure of the contents of those documents would be injurious to public interest.
(3.)The petitioner in this case moved this Court under Article 226 of the constitution for the issue of a Writ in the nature of a certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the respondents i.e., the Government of Andhra Pradesh , Food and Agriculture Department, represented by its Special Decretary; the Chief Conservator of Forests; the Conservator of Forests and the Divisional Forest Officer in Adilabad District. It may be necessary to state a few relevant facts as would appear from the affidavit of the petitioner in order that the question involved may be better appreciated. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a jagirdar entitled to the timber in the forest for the Jagir of Pottial to an extent of 3/4ths and the Government is entitled to the remaining 1/4th. Under the provisions of the Forests Act. 1355 F. (Act II of 1355 Fasli) Where the Government has a share along with a jagirdar the management rests with the Government has a share along with a jagirdar the management rests with the Government (Forest Department) and the other sharer the jagirdar, will be entitled to a prorata share in the income. The father of the petitioner it would appear, approached the erstwhile Government of Hyderabad on 19th Sherwar 1328 Fasil for taking necessary steps to evaluate the timber in the jagir forest so as to enable him to take possession of the entire forest area and to pay the Government what is due towards its 1/4th share. According to him on account of certain differences of opinion between the Chief Conservator of Foresters and the Conservator of Forests as to the method of securing the 3/4 the right of the jagirdar no settlement could be arrived at and the matter has been pending since 1338 Fasil. While matter stood thus, the Jagirs were abolished and taken over by the erstwhile State of the Hyderabad. It is the grievance of the petitioner that when the jagirs were taken over, the income from the forest to which he was entitled could not be included for the purpose of calculating the commutation amount and therefore he made representations to the Government. The Government recognized that he was the owner of the timber in question to the extent of 3/4ths share and the timber to the extent of his share should be handed over to him. It would appear that the Government passed an order on 17-7-1952 directing payment of Rs.25,254.00 being the 4 3/4ths of the value of the Chobina (timber) to the petitioner. It is his complaint that although the Government admitted his rights and interest in the standing timer he had not been paid the value of that timber so far and therefore he made repeated representations to the Government. The Government according to him,. on a perusal of the relevant filed relating to his claims, passed G.O.Ms.No131 dated 24/01/1967 by and under which he was allowed to fell his 3/4ths share of the timber in the jagir and the Conservator of Forests was requested to demarcate the 3/4ths area and hand it over to him. Later certain conditions were imposed on the petitioner for handing over the area and for felling the timber; and it is his case that he satisfied all the conditions, executed a release deed deposited some amount towards security and to cover the allowance and salaries of the Range Office who was put in charge of the forest area for felling the timber. The working period was to be two years from the date of handing over of the area to the forest officials. While he had made all the necessary arrangements to remove the timber that was cut the Government pursuant to the agreement entered into by the petitioner complying with the conditions imposed by the Government issued a notice on 2 6/12/1967 proposing to review its order made in G.O.Ms.No.131 dated 2 4/01/1967. To this the petitioner submitted his representations on 2 7/01/1966 contending that the Government had no jurisdiction to cancel or review the earlier G.O.Ms. No.131 and that pursuant to the agreement later entered into, he had incurred considerable expenditure for felling the timber in certain areas. The Government, on a consideration of the representations, by its G.O.Ms.No.836 dated 3/04/1968 canceled G.O.Ms.No.131 and that led to the filling of this writ Petition, The grounds urged by him are that the Government by its order dated 23/04/1968 which canceled G.O.Ms. No.131 has violated the fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Article 19 of the Constitution and also the obligations and duties that are cast on it under Article 299 of the Constitution and the impugned G.O. dated 23/04/1968 is illegal.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.