P CHINNA REDDY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR EAST GODARARI DISTRICT KAKINADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Appeal No. 566 of 1977 was disposed of on 9th November. 1977 with a direction to the District Collector, Bast Godavari. "If the Forest Department is unable to remove the standing tret growth within two months thereafter, the Collector shall have the tree growth removed through his own agencies and credit the amount realised to the account of each of the petitioners in proportion to their shares. We have no doubt that the Collector, East Godavari, will bestow personal attention in the matter of removal of the standing tree growth on the lands assigned to the petitioners." Although this direction was issued on 9th November, 1977 with a solemn exp ession of hope by the Bench that the Collector, East Godavari, will bestow his personal attention, it is regrettable that nothing has been done by the District Collector, East Godavari so far. The present writ petition (W. P. No. 3834 of 1978) has therefore been filed by the petitioners for a direction to the 2nd respondent D. F O Kakinada to issue transit permits in Form II for transporting of timber and fuel from the petitioners' patta lands under rule 5 of the Andnra Pradesh Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970. It may be noted that the patta lands to which reference has been made in the present writ petition are the same lands from which the forest growth was directed to be removed by the Collector, East Godavari by a Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid Writ Appeal No.566 of 1977. la view of the earlier directions issued by the Beach, one would have expected the District Collector, East Oodavari to take expeditious and appropriate steps for the removal and transport of tree growth from the lands assigned to the petitioners; but unfortunately he has not done for over a period of one year. I am aow told that the Collector could not carry out the directions of the Bench became the lands which were assigned to the petitioners are situated in the reserved forest area. If this were the correct position and if that is considered as sufficient justification, the Collector, East Oodavari, should have applied for and obtained appropriate orders of review front the Division Bench. The Division Bench order clearly proceeds on the basis that the tree growth was standing on the patta lands assigned to the petitioners. If this basis of assumption is incorrect as it is now suggested, if becomes the duty of the Collector to take appropriate steps to bring it to the notice of the Court: but instead he has simply slept over the matter at least to the extent it relates to the carrying out the orders of this Court The least that one can say about this conduct is that it is unfortunate. In fact under strict law this is nothing short of disobtdience by the District Collector of the clear directions issued by this Court. However, inasmuch as the prayer which has been made now in the present writ petition is inconsistent with the order made by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Appeal No. (W. A. No. 566 of 1977), I cannot obviously grant this prayer. The present prayer in the writ petition is based on the assumption that the petitioners are entitled to cut and remove the tree growth of the lands assigned to them whereas according to the earlier directions given by this Court on 9th November, 19 7 it is the Collector of East Godavari who should take steps to remove the standing tree growth on the lands assigned to the petitioners. If I now make an order in terms of the prayer in the present writ petition, that will clearly run counter to the earlier directions given by this Court. Fur her the fact that toe lands which were assigned to the petitioners are in the reserved forest area, is also brought to my notice. I cannot therefore make any further orders on this petition in favour of the petitioners. However, I refer this matter to the Division Bench so that the petitioners might obtain appropriate orders. Dutta Mohan Rao, for Petitioners. Government Pleader for Industries on behalf of Respondent. In pursuance of the above order, this petition came on for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of Lakshmaiah and Madnava Rao, JJ. The judgment of the Division Bench was delivered by Lakshmaiah, J.:-A decision of a Division Bench of this Court consisting of The Hpn'ble Mr. S. Obul Reddi, Chief Justice (since retired on 9th April, 1978) and the Hon'ble Mr Justice P, Chennakesav Reddi, rendered as early as on 9th November, 1977 containing the following direction, is. even after a lapse of two years, yet to be obeyed by the Forest and Revenue Departments. "We therefore direct the Collector, East Godavari to consider and examine the feasibility of the proposal suggested by him in his letter to the Conservator of Forests within one month from the date of the recepit of this order. If the Forest Department is unable to remove the standing tree growth within two months thereafter the Collector shall have the tree growth removed through his own agencies and credit the amount realised to the account of each of the petitioners in proportion to their shares. We have BO doubt that the Collector, East Godavari, will bestow personal attention in the matter of removal of the standing tree growth on the lands assigned to the petitioners."

(2.) The one month period, allowed to the Collector, expired long back. The Forest Department did not remove the standing tree growth within two months thereafter. The lands assigned to the petitioners are all identifiable and the tree growth thereon is ascertainable. The Collector was directed to have the standing tree growth on the lands assigned to the petitioners removed through his own agencies and to credit the amount realised to the account of each of the petitioners in proportion to their shares. He hat not done either.

(3.) It is that situation that occasioned the invoking of the jurisdiction of this Court by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the issuance of an appropriate writ, particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus, directing the District Collector and the District Forest Officer, East Godvari District, at Kakinada, "to issue transport permit in Form II for transporting of timber and fuel from patta lands under rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970".