APHC010055952026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Friday, the Sixth day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Six The Honourable Ms.Justice Writ Petition Between: 1. Yatagiri Ravi, S/o.Muneaiah, aged about Bodeddulapalli village, 2. Yatagiri Muneiah, S/o.Basaiah village, Chinthakomma Dinne 3. Thati Makula Ramanjaneyulu D.No.9/300, Bodeddulapalli Village District. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by i Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Forest Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 3. The District Collector, Y.S.R.Kadapa District, Kadapa. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa Revenue Division, Kadapa. 5. The Tahsildar, C.K.Dinne Mandal, C.K.Dinne, Y.S.R.Kadapa District. 6. The Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Department, K 7. The Forest Range Officer, Kadapa. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) the Sixth day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.3226 of 2026 o.Muneaiah, aged about 43 years, R/o.H.N , Chintakommadinne mandal , Kadapa District o.Basaiah, aged about 80 years, R/o. Bodeddulapalli Chinthakomma Dinne village, Y.S.R.Kadapa District. Thati Makula Ramanjaneyulu, S/o. Pullaiah, aged about 55 Bodeddulapalli Village, C.K.Dinne Mandal, Y.S ... and he State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. he Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Forest Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. he District Collector, Y.S.R.Kadapa District, Kadapa. he Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa Revenue Division, Kadapa. he Tahsildar, C.K.Dinne Mandal, C.K.Dinne, Y.S.R.Kadapa District. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Department, Kadapa. he Forest Range Officer, Kadapa. ...R IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] the Sixth day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Six H.No.9/299, Chintakommadinne mandal , Kadapa District. Bodeddulapalli 55 years, R/o. S.R.Kadapa ...Petitioners ts Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. he Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Forest Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. he Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa Revenue Division, Kadapa. he Tahsildar, C.K.Dinne Mandal, C.K.Dinne, Y.S.R.Kadapa District. adapa. ...Respondents 2 BSB,J W.P.No.3226 of 2026 Counsel for the petitioners: 1. Subba Rao Korrapati Counsel for the respondents: 1. Government Pleader for Revenue 2. Government Pleader for Forests 3 BSB,J W.P.No.3226 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to cut down the mango garden and trying to dispossess the petitioners from the land in Sy.No 283 to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents of the each petitioner in Bodeddulapalli Village, C.K.Dinne Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District, without considering the rights of the petitioners under the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (in short ‘the Act, 2006’) and without issuing any notice and following due process of law, as arbitrary, illegal in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to receive the applications from the petitioners to recognize their rights over the land in Sy.No.283 to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents to each of the petitioners under the provisions of the Act, 2006, and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the land in issue and to pass such other order, which this Court deems fit in the interest of justice. 02. The case of the petitioners is briefly as follows:- The petitioners hail from Schedule Tribe community and are residing in an interior village near the forest. They are eking out their livelihood collecting forest products from the forest. The land in Sy.No.283 of Chinnakampalli village, C.K.Dinne mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District was classified as forest poramboke to an extent of Ac.126.00 cents. The village of Chinnakampalli is also located within Sy.No.283 only. The forest authorities fixed the kairons (forest boundary stones) after conducting survey. The petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the land which is claimed by the forest 4 BSB,J W.P.No.3226 of 2026 department as forest poramboke. In fact, the land is outside the kairons fixed by the forest department. The petitioners have been in settled possession of Ac.3.00 cents each in Sy.No.283. The ancestors of the petitioners occupied the same and doing agricultural operations apart from procuring the forest produce from the forest. The petitioners have been requesting the revenue authorities to issue D.K.T. pattas as the land is situated outside the kairons. But, the authorities are not considering the request of the petitioners on the ground that the land was denoted in the records as forest poramboke. On the applications made by the petitioners to the respondent No.4, the respondent No.5, after conducting necessary enquiry, proceedings Ref: Spl. / P.C.No.5/2018, dated 12.04.2018; Spl. / P.C.No.6 / 2018, dated 12.04.2018 and; Spl. / P.C.No.4 / 2018, dated 12.04.2018 were issued to the petitioners Nos.1 to 3 respectively certifying their possession and enjoyment and stating that the land was inherited by them from their ancestors and that they enjoyed it by raising mango garden aged about ten years and also internal crops like ground nut, red gram, horse gram etc., The petitioners filed photographs showing aged mango crop in their possession and the kairons fixed by the respondents. Since the respondents Nos.5 to 7 are intending to dispossess the petitioners without following any due process of law and ignoring the request of the petitioners to consider their case for recognition of their rights under the provisions of the Act, 2006, this writ petition was filed. If the respondents high handedly dispossess the petitioners from the land and / or the mango and the other gardens are indiscriminately fell down, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss. 03. Ms.Baliboyina Sravani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for forests, appearing for the respondents Nos.2, 6 and 7 placed on record a copy of the written instructions of the Forest Range Officer, Kadapa / respondent No.7 wherein it is stated that the land claimed by the petitioners is part of forest poramboke as per the revenue records and that the existing legal status and the extent got finalised only after conducting a joint inspection along with the officers of the revenue officials and after verification of the relevant records. It is 5 BSB,J W.P.No.3226 of 2026 further stated that the revenue records did not confer right over any land entered in the records. In claim under the Act, 2006 can be considered only after following due process prescribed under the Act, 2006 involving the Gram Sabha, Sub-Divisional Level Committee and the District Level Committee and mere filing or intention to file application does not vest any right on the petitioners. It is denied that the officials of the forest department are attempting to forcibly dispossess the petitioners from the disputed land. No such co-ercive action has been taken so far. If any action is required it would be taken strictly in accordance with law. 04. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the written instructions, there is no dispute about the actual possession of the petitioners in the land, except the extent of the nature of the land and that the exact extent can be determined only after due enquiry and inspection of the land in accordance with records. He further submitted that the request of the petitioners can be considered by the authorities, but, till such time their possession shall be protected and that the authorities may follow the procedure contemplated under law before initiating any action for dispossessing the petitioners. 05. On the other hand, Ms.Oruganti Sayamma, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 submitted that there is no truth in the allegation that the authorities are trying to dispossess the petitioners without following due process of law. She further submitted that as indicated in the written instructions, the land in dispute is forest poramboke and the petitioners’ claim for their rights under the Act, 2006 is required to be examined only after due enquiry in the light of the records and that there is no real threat to the petitioners, but the petitioners had hastily approached the Court and filed the writ petition. 06. Considering the submissions on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to submit the application / representation before 6 BSB,J W.P.No.3226 of 2026 appropriate authority to make their claim for any kind of right under law within one month (if not already submitted) from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and thereafter due procedure shall be followed by the authorities to decide the application. All such procedure shall be strictly in accordance with law. Till such time, the possession of the petitioners over the disputed land shall not be disturbed, except according to law in case if the petitioners are not entitled to the land in dispute. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ ___ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Date: 06.02.2026 GRL 7 BSB,J W.P.No.3226 of 2026 92 THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO:3226 of 2026 Date: 06.02.2026 GRL 8 BSB,J W.P.No.3226 of 2026