APHC010119522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 6374/2025 Between: BHUMUGARI CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, S/O CHITHAMBARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 1-142, PENKACHERLA VILLAGE, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, GARLADINNE MANDAL ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent, in issuing the notice dated 03.03.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 300A of the Constitution of India. Consequently, set aside the same by directing the respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in in Sy.No.534/2 an extent 2 of Ac.3.96 and Ac. 4.52 situated at Penkacherla Village, Garladinne Mandal District, in the interest of justice, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner: K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following: ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice dated 03.03.2025 issued by the respondent as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 300A of the Constitution, and consequently to set aside the same and restrain the respondent from interfering with the petitioner's alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land situated in Sy.No.534/2, Penkacherla Village, Garladinne Mandal. 2. Perused the record. Heard Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner. 3. On 19.03.2025, learned counsel for the writ petitioner categorically submitted that, if reasonable time was granted to the petitioner for harvesting the sweet lime fruits, the petitioner would remove all the sweet lime trees standing on the subject land and vacate the premises belonging to the Forest 3 Department, lock, stock, and barrel, and that the petitioner was willing to file an undertaking affidavit to the said effect. 4. It is evident from the undertaking affidavit dated 26.03.2025 filed by the writ petitioner that he undertook to remove 200 sweet lime plants/trees within a period of six (6) months and the remaining 400 plants/trees within a period of eighteen (18) months, and thereafter vacate the subject premises completely, handing over vacant possession thereof. 5. Subsequently, on 01.04.2025, learned counsel for the writ petitioner further submitted that the petitioner would vacate the entire extent of land belonging to the Forest Department on or before 31.08.2025 by removing all the existing sweet lime plants standing thereon. In furtherance of the said submission, the petitioner filed another undertaking affidavit dated 10.04.2025 to that effect. 6. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to withdraw the present writ petition. However, he requests that appropriate measures be taken for the protection and preservation of the sweet lime plants, which are stated to be approximately eight (8) years old and standing on the subject land. Admittedly, more than one year has elapsed from the date of filing of the initial undertaking affidavit by the writ petitioner, wherein he undertook to vacate the subject land. Likewise, more than ten (10) months have elapsed from the date of filing of the subsequent undertaking affidavit reiterating the said commitment. In view of the unequivocal undertakings furnished by the 4 petitioner from time to time and the considerable period that has since elapsed, this Court finds no justification for keeping the present writ petition pending. Insofar as the request regarding protection of the sweet lime plants is concerned, it is needless to observe that the responsibility for safeguarding and protecting the trees and vegetation, if any, situated within forest land squarely vests upon the competent authorities of the Forest Department. Such responsibility flows from their statutory duties and obligations under the forest laws and regulations. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that no separate or specific direction is required to be issued in this regard. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the material available on record, the undertaking affidavits filed by the writ petitioner, and the submissions advanced, the present Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Interim orders granted, if any, shall stand vacated. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 16.06.2026 KRS 5 114 THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.6374 of 2025 DATE:16.06.2026 KRS