1 APHC010192502020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 12427/2020 Between: Ch Venkata Girish ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. UTTARA LEGAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FORESTS 2. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY APHC010150742020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 9217/2020 2 Between: Ch Venkata Girirsh ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. UTTARA LEGAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR FORESTS 3. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY APHC010150602020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 9230/2020 Between: K.ushasree ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. UTTARA LEGAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY APHC010212222020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 13962/2020 Between: Ch Venkata Girirsh ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. UTTARA LEGAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FORESTS (AP) 2. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:- The Writ Petitions are filed challenging the letter issued by the 4th respondent dated 23-06-2020 in respect of the subject land of an extent of 5.310 hectares in S.No.305 and 307 of Thotakurapalem Village,Ravikamatam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, and in interfering with the quarry operations 4 in an extent of 5.310 Hectares in S.No.305 and 307 and 7.00 Hectares in S.No. 307 of Thotakurapalem Village, Ravikamatam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2. It is contended that the petitioner was granted a quarry lease for extraction of colour granite in respect of the subject land for a period of twenty years, with effect from 27-06-2012 to 26-06-2032. After execution of the sale deed, the forest department and revenue department conducted a joint survey, and the land was found, vide proceedings dated 24-09-2012, to be falling outside the reserve forest area. A further joint survey was conducted on 03-09-2012, in the said survey, the subject land was also found to be outside the forest area. 3. Thereafter, on 25-11-2014, respondent No.2 addressed a letter to respondent No.4 stating that the proposed quarry area in the subject land would fall outside the forest area; however, it was observed that a buffer of 7.5 meters from the Reserve Forest Boundary line should be maintained. The Forest Survey Officer also conducted a survey and found that the subject land is out of the reserved forest area. However, the Divisional Manager of the AP Forest Development Corporation directed a further survey. The 5th respondent, vide his letter dated 17.11.2017, submitted a report stating that no further joint surveys are required. The 4th respondent, however, issued impugned proceedings in the Writ Petition dated 23-06-2020 to the 3rd 5 respondent, the 5th respondent and the RDO, stating that a joint inspection is required to be conducted as per the letter of the Divisional Forest Officer. 4. Challenging the said proceedings, the Writ Petition is filed. It is contended that in terms of the proceedings dated 27-06-2012, the petitioner was granted mining for a period of twenty years commencing from 27-06-2012. As noted from the survey reports of the Revenue Department dated 3-09-2012 joint inspection reports, the subject land is revenue land. The Divisional Forest Officer, vide his proceedings dated 25-11-2014, informed the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology that the subject land is falling outside the forest area limits; however, he observed that a distance of 7.5 meters should be maintained from the Reserve Forest Boundary. 5. The Divisional Forest Officer further vide his letter dated 25.11.2015, further informed the Divisional Manager, APFDC, that the subject land falls outside the reserve forest area and that the lease holder has constructed the boundary pillars, leaving a distance of 7.50 meters from the boundary of the forest. 6. The Divisional Forest Officer, the 3rd respondent herein, filed his counter affidavit stating that the inspection staff did not identify the error in the notification at the early stage and by mistake, the DFO has issued a letter stating that the mining area falls outside the forest boundary. It is further stated that there was a typographical error in mentioning the traverse. In the counter affidavit, the Divisional Forest Officer has stated as follows: 6 “In this regard it is submitted that, before issuance of Section 4 Notification on 25.02.1958 a detailed survey was carried out to declare Pangidi as Reserve Forest, and at that time the survey was conducted with chain and compass and the Traverse Field Book for Pangidi Reserved Forest was prepared. In the said field book, the traverse between Station No.77 to 78 is mentioned as 343½° magnetic bearing with 474 links distance. But while the Notification u/s 4 was published, due to typographical mistake, the Traverse mentioned as i.e., 242½° instead of 343½°. At the time of Sec.15 Notification, no further survey was conducted and traverse as was in Sec.4 Notification remained. In view of the error in traverse i.e., 242½° instead of 343 ½°, the boundary line is passing outside the mining lease area erroneously.” 7. The 5th respondent also vide his letter dated 17.11.2017 has informed the Assistant Director of Survey that the subject land would not fall under Reserved Forest Area and there is no need for further joint inspection. 8. Considered the rival submissions. 9. According to the respondents, a mistake had crept in the Notification issued under Sec.4 and 15 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). As a result, the erroneous boundary was fixed. 10. Under the provisions of the Forest Act, the Notification issued under Sec.4 and 15 of ‘the Act’ is conclusive proof of the land notified therein as constituting a reserve forest. If any land is excluded from the notification issued under Sec.4 and Sec 15, and subsequently if it is found that the said 7 land is to be included in the reserve forest area, the procedure contemplated under Sec 4 and Sec 15 of ‘the Act’ has to be followed. Without following the same, authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction to alter the land notified under Sec.4 of ‘the Act’. Having regard to the same, the impugned proceedings in the Writ Petition have been set aside. The respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioner's quarrying operations, without recourse to law. 11. With the above observations, the Writ Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:20.03.2025 MVK 8 457 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.12427, 9217, 9230 & 13962 of 2020 Date:20.03.2025 MVK