► IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATIi^^ THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKURT AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO,, WRIT APPEAL NO: 88 OF 2025 ^ Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 12.12.2024 in WP. No.3083 of 2024 on the file of the High Court.^ Between: Y. Chittayya, S/o.Surya Rao, aged about 49 years, R/o Koruprolu S.Rayavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District. Mr ...APPELLANT AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Forest Department), Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Visakhapatnam District. 3. The District Forest Officer, Anakapalli Division, Narsipatnam, Anakapalli District 4. The Forest Range Officer, Yellamanchili, Anakapalli District. 5. Forest Section Officer, Payakaraopeta, Anakapalli District. ...RESPONDENTS lA 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 to stay the auction notice dated 08.01.2025 vide Letter No. 1836/2024-A7 issued by the 3'^'^ Respondenj pending the disposal of the Writ Appeal. lA NO: 2 0F 2025 1*- .!! w-y. I t Petition under Section ISfCPC praying that in the circumstances Stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents permit me to allow the Petitioner to pluck, pick, collect and sell the usufruct of the Cashew from the subject plantation i.e., Chinateenarla VSS Cashew plantation, Yellamanchili range, Anakapalli Division, Anakapaili District. lA NO: 3 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 to suspend the impugned order passed by the Ld. Single Judge in W.P. No. 3083 of 2024 dated 12.12.2024 pending the disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM - Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FORESTS ^ The Court made the following: JUDGMENT 1 HG&RRRJ W.A.N.88 OF 2025 APHCO10056392025 i/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) F' [3446] IF’ THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 88/8085 Between: ...APPELLANT Y. Cliittayya, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Tiie State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Appellant: l.S.V.S.S.SIVARAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): l.GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri S.V.S.S. Sivaram, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Forests, appearing for the respondents. The appellant herein was the successful bidder in the auction, conducted by the 3^^^ respondent, for sale of usufruct of Cashew 2. 2 HCJ&RRR,J W.A.N.88 0F2025* in the Ghinteenarla VSS Cashew plantation, Yellamanchili range, Anakapalli Division for the 2023 season. 3. The appellant, had thereafter submitted a representation. dated 31.0.3.2023, stating that there are encroachments,in the said Cashew plantation area, and that the encroachments need to be removed so as to enable the petitioner to collect all the Cashew. The appellant had thereafter filed W.P.No.29492 of 2023, before this Court, for a direction to the respondents to dispose of the said representation. It may also be noted that the respondents had also issued a notice, dated 21.06.2023, to pay the balance auction amount. This notice was also the subject matter of the aforesaid writ petition and a learned Single Judge of this Court, while passing the above direction, had also set aside the said notice. 4. The appellant again approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.3083 of 2024, contending that the respondents have initiated fresh steps for auction of the Cashew plantations, for the 2024 season even without disposing of the representation of the appellant. The appellant contended that fresh auction would not be permissible until the representation of the appellant had been disposed of either by refunding the amounts, collected from the appellant, or by extending the period of lease. 3 HCJ&RRRJ W.A.N.88OF 2025 5. The respondent-authorities filed a counter affidavit stating that the auction amount payable by the appellant was Rs.7,50,000/-, out of which only an amount of Rs.1,52,713/-. This amount was disputed by the appellant and it appears that some amounts have been paid subsequently also. 6. A learned Single Judge of this Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the Writ Petition by an order, dated 12.12.2024. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the burden of safeguarding the Cashew plantation would be on the appellant who should deploy his own people to safeguard against unauthorised or unlawful harvesting of Cashew and that in any event judicial review would not arise as there was no arbitrary action on the part of the respondents. 7. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant had approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal. Sri S.V.S.S. Siva ram, the learned counsel for the appellant 8. would submit that the respondents instead of acting upon the representation of the appellant had deliberately delayed taking up the complaint of the appellant and have also refused to take any steps to protect the interest of the appellant. The learned counsel would submit that a proper appreciation of the facts would require the respondent- authorities to either refund the amounts paid out by the petitioner or to 4 HCJ&RRRJ W.A.N.88 OF 2025 extend the period of lease so as to permit the appellant to recover the amoimts paid by Mm. The case of the appellant, appears to be that, he was xmable 9. to obtain the benefit of the right to collect Cashew, on account of tMrd parties encroacMng into the area and unlawfully harvesting or collecting Cashew. The question of whether tMs allegation is true or not. is a question of fact wMch cannot be gone into by tMs Court, in proceedings under Article SS6 of the Constitution of India. At worst, the appellant can make out a case of not being able to obtain the full benefit of the contract. In such a situation, the appellant, at best, can initiate action agamst the respondent-authorities for compensation. Stopping the auction of collection rights for the S0S4 season, would not in any manner assist the appellant, in recovery of any compensation etc. In the circumstances, we are unable to comprehend as to 10. why interdicting the auction of the 2024 season would assist the appellant. For the aforesaid reasons, tMs Writ Appeal is dismissed. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Forests, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT CNR DATED:06/02/2025 AMDg^ s>- JUDGMENT WA.No.88 Of 2025 te 18 FEB 2023 ^ . Current Section DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS