D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed for the following reliefs:

i) For holding that the action of the 2nd respondent in not registering the fours sale deeds dated 21.03.2009 (covered by Document in P.91, 96, 97 and 98 of 2009 in respect of 111.03 Acres comprised in Survey No. 86 of Nave Pothavaram village in Ibrahimpatnam Mandalam in Krishna District as illegal, void and inoperative and to direct the 2nd respondent to release the same duly registered;

ii) Further to declare that land in an extent of Acres 111.03 cents covered by R.S. No. 86 situated in Navi Pothavaram village in Ibrahimpatnam Mandalam in Krishna District not having been notified as forest land in terms of Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act, cannot be declared as Forest area, and accordingly, interdict the respondents from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the said extent of land and;

iii) To declare the order of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Hyderabad, i.e., the 4th respondent herein, issued in Rc. No. 3495/2009-J1, dt.16.03.2009, as illegal, void, inoperative and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. This Court has heard Sri P. Sri Raghuram, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Sasi Bhushan Rao, learned counsel assisting the learned Additional Advocate General, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Government Pleader for Forest.

3. This is a case with a long and chequered history. The dispute pertains to land of an extent of Ac.111.03 cents in R.S. No. 86 of Nave Pothavaram village in Ibrahimpatnam Mandalam. The petitioners assert their title to this land and the respondent State has also staked its claim to the same land and claims that it is a part of a notified Forest.

4. According to the learned senior counsel, this land was initially part of the Zamindari of Valluru Estate and a rough patta was issued in favor of the Zamindar in 1928 itself. The said extent was in the enjoyment of the Zamindar as his private land and he sold the same by a registered sale deed dated 07.08.1962. The purchasers were in possession and thereafter the present set of petitioners have purchased the land under four sale deeds dated 21.03.2009. When these documents were presented for registration, the Sub-Registrar did not register the same on the ground that there is a dispute pending with regard to the land. Therefore, one prayer in the Writ Petition is for registration and release of these documents. He submits that this extent is private land separately assessed to tax that it was not part of the zamindari estate and did not vest in the Government after the Estate Abolition Act.

5. In addition, learned senior counsel submits that even earlier when the Forest Department had made a claim on the land, W.P. No. 26471 of 1976 was filed for joint survey of the land measuring Ac.111-03 cents situated in old Sy. No. 74 and 75 (New Survey No. 86) of Navepothavaram. This Writ Petition was dismissed by an order dated 26.04.1977. Against the same, Writ Appeal No. 1324 of 1997 was filed. During the course of hearing the Division Bench realized that the representation given by the petitioner was pending before the authorities. Therefore, the Writ Appeal was disposed of directing the petitioners to make a detailed representation, which was to be dealt with by the Divisional Forest Officer on merits. Accordingly, the petitioners in that case made a representation which was rejected on the ground that the Forest Department is not the competent authority to survey the land and that the petitioners' request to conduct survey does not deserve any consideration.

6. Learned senior counsel submits that a perusal of the entire record would show that even as on date a final Notification under Section 15 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 is not issued and that at various points of time Joint Inspections were conducted which clearly indicated the existence of serious discrepancies in the location and boundaries of the so called reserve forest land. He also points out that officers have recommended for publication of errata notification etc., and that a reading of the counter affidavit filed and the documents submitted would make this crystal clear. He submits that even the Forest Department is not very sure of the extent of land it claims as reserve forest area or if it includes the land in Sy. No. 86 of Navepothavaram measuring Ac.111.03 cents. As per him this extent is private land of the Zamindar and not a part of the Estate at all. Learned senior counsel took this Court through the counter affidavits and documents filed in support of his submission that there is no clarity. He asserts that this land was never notified as a 'Reserve Forest' at all, more so in accordance with the Forest Act. He points out that at the very inception, the original notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act itself, the survey numbers etc., are not mentioned. Therefore, he submits that this is an issue which goes to the root of the matter and that the petitioners were right in requesting for a survey to localize their land vis-a-vis the claim of the Forest Department. Alternatively it is submitted that the Forest Department is claiming rights over the property, but its rights were never crystallized and the procedure stipulated under the has not been followed for notifying this land. He also points out that the contention of the Department that the Notifications have become final and no claims were made within the stipulated time is also not correct for the reason that the Notifications published do not contain the survey numbers of this land for the affected parties to make a claim as required nor were the mandatory notices served as required under the Forest Act. Unless and until the notification is published with clarity and the same is duly communicated as warranted under the Forest Act none of the land owners or persons claiming to have any right can actually make a claim. Therefore, he contends that in the existing state of affairs it cannot be contended that no claims are filed or that the rights are extinguished. He reiterates that the petitioner is entitled to the 2nd prayer also.

7. Lastly, he submits that considering the fact situation and the obvious and clear errors in the procedures adopted, the order of the Principal Chief Conservative Forest Officer dated 16.03.2009 is also to be set aside, since superimposing a fresh survey on the old Section 4 of the Forest Act Notification is not correct. He relies on the contents of this letter itself to point out the lack of clarity. A written brief is also filed summarizing the points.

8. Sri Sasi Bhushan Rao, learned Special Government Pleader also took great pains to argue the matter at length for the State.

9. The first and foremost submissions made by Sri Sasi Bhushan Rao is that under the Forest Act, once the Notifications are issued and a particular area is declared as reserve forest area any further claims can only be filed before the Settlement Officer and then the Tribunal constituted. As per him, no claims were preferred and the land vested with the State. He, therefore, submits that a writ is not maintainable. He also contends that all the rights of the erstwhile owners are also extinguished as per the. He also strongly urges that the petitioner's predecessors in title did not obtain a patta under the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 and that they have no title to the land which has vested in the Government. It is also pointed out that the entire land including the presently disputed area i.e., Ac.111.03 cents vested in the Government and the petitioners or their predecessors do not have any right, title or interest in the property which could have been conveyed. He also argues on the basis of cases reported in Pollisetti Pullamma v Kalluri Kameswaramma AIR 1991 SC 604 [LQ/SC/1990/636] and Rani Sundarammani v Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2011) 5 ALT 57 that the petitioner failed to establish that the land was a private land. He also submits that the Division Bench clearly distinguished between the private land and estate land and he submits that in this case the petitioners have not filed any evidence that the land Ac.111-03 cents are actually private lands. He points out that either proof of direct cultivation or other indications are not visible from the record. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner's predecessors themselves had no title and consequently petitioners also cannot claim any further rights. He also points out that the Forest Act is self contained Code and that this Court should not, therefore, interfere in the issues of fact and law, which are belatedly raised in this case.

10. Learned Government Pleader argues on behalf of the Sub-Registrar and makes his submissions in line with his counter affidavit. According to him, the mere fact that earlier sale deeds were registered in 1962 do not lead to a conclusion that the current sale deeds were also valid documents. He points out that once the error has been noticed the Registration Department has taken prerequisite steps to protect the Government land. Therefore, it is his contention that the stand taken by the department in not registering the sale deeds is correct and valid.

COURT:

11. A major defense of the respondents is that appropriate notifications have been issued commencing with the Section 4 Notification under the Forest Act 1967 and that in Navi Pothavaram village, an extent of Ac.858.00 cents, has been declared as a reserve forest area. Therefore, it is submitted that the Writ is not maintainable and/or that the petitioners claims do not subsist.

12. Chapter-II of the Forest Act 1967 deals with the procedures involved in this aspect. Section 4 deals with the Notification that is to be issued by the Government;

signifying its intention to declare a "reserve forest" Section 6 deals with the Proclamation to be issued by the Government specifying the extent of land etc., proposed to be declared as a reserve forest and also appointment of Forest Settlement Officer to consider the objections. Subsequent sections deal with the procedure to be followed by the Forest Settlement Officer etc. Section 15 states that if an objection is not filed within the period fixed under Section 6 or if Appeal has been disposed of under Section 13 of theby the District Court etc., the Government may publish a notification specifying definitely the limits of the forest which is intended to be held as 'reserve'. These provisions of law and the consequences mentioned therein are relied on by the State.

13. This Court is, therefore, proposing at the outset to scrutinize the documents filed and the sequence of events to see if the statutory procedures were followed leading to a declaration of the Reserve Forest and the extinguishment of the petitioner's rights.

PROCEDURE UNDER THE FOREST ACT:

14. Prayer (ii) of the writ is for a declaration that the Ac.111.03 cents was not notified as a Forest area and is not a Forest land. Since the parties are at issue on this, this is taken up at the outset.

15. On 14.05.1970 a Notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act was published. This is filed at page No. 223 of the paper book. The area proposed to be declared is Ac.858.00 cents in Navi Pothavaram village.

16. It is seen from this gazette publication that the Forest Department issued the Gazette Notification on the basis of its pillars (carens) only and also the boundaries. There is absolutely no reference to the survey numbers or the extents included in the 858 Acres. Neither is there any reference to a revenue department survey before this date. However, in the boundaries there is a mention of certain survey numbers.

17. The proclamation under Section 6 was made in the Gazette on 04.03.1971. This was filed at page No. 231 of the paper book. Even in this publication there is no reference to the Survey numbers or the extents. It is also mentioned clearly in this notification that if no claims are preferred the rights will be extinguished after the publication of Section 15 Notification.

18. Interestingly in page 5 of the Counter filed by R 3 it is mentioned that "due to some mistake" the Section 4 notification was again published in District Gazette 9/1982 on 14-9-1982. Copy of the said Gazette is filed at page 244 of the paper book. This means that the procedure was started once again in September 1982 since a Sec. 4 Notification expresses the intention to declare an area as a Forest.

19. After the Forest Settlement Officer (FSO) is appointed he has a duty as per Section 6 the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act and the Settlement Rules, 1969 to serve a copy of the proclamation on every known or reputed owner or occupier of any land included in the area or adjoining the land proposed to be constituted as a Reserve Forest or on his recognized agent or manager and to consider their objections if any. The detailed procedure to be followed by a Forest Settlement Officer is also specified from Rule 3 onwards. The form of proclamation under sub-section 2 of Section 6 is also specified in Form-3. Section 6 (2) of thewhich has an important bearing on this issue is reproduced here:

"Section 6 (2) The Forest Settlement Officer shall also serve in the manner prescribed, a copy of the proclamation on every known or reputed owner or occupier of any land included in or adjoining the land proposed to be constituted as a reserved forest, or on his recognised agent or manager."

20. The language in the rule is clear and preemptory. It specifies how the proclamation copy should be served on every person etc., including the owners/occupiers of the adjoining land. This pre-supposes that the department must be aware of both the land included in and also the land adjoining the proposed reserve forest. To meet this contingency the Forest Department must have clear details of the land included and also the adjoining lands to determine the boundary marks and the limits of the forest for the purposes of enquiry and also for the final decision under Section 15 of the A.P.Forest Act, 1967, which is as follows:

"Section 15 Notification declaring Forest reserved (1) Upon the occurrence of the following events namely:

(a) the period fixed under section 6 for preferring of an objection or a claim had elapsed, and every objection or claim made under that section was disposed of by the Forest Settlement Officer ; and (b) if any such claim was made, the period limited by section 13 for preferring an appeal from the order passed on such claim had elapsed, and every appeal presented within such period was disposed of by the appellate authority ; and (c) all proceedings mentioned in section 10 were taken and all lands, if any, to be included in the proposed forest, which the Forest Settlement Officer had, under section 10, elected to acquire under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had become vested in the Government under Section 16 of that Act; the Government may publish a notification specifying definitely according to boundary marks erected or otherwise, the limits of the forest which it is intended to reserve and declaring the same to be reserved from a date to be fixed by such notification and from the date so fixed, such forest shall be deemed to be a reserved forest.

(2) Copies of the notification shall also be published in the District Gazette, if any, and in the manner provided for the proclamation under section 6." The final notification should also have the clear details of the boundary or the outer limit of the Forest.

21. The manner in which the F S O has to conduct the enquiry, the time frames, the details to be mentioned in the proclamation/the consequences, powers of the FSO etc., are spelt out with clarity in Section 6, 8 and 9 of the. The orders that can be passed including the compensation payable etc., are specified in Sections 10, 11 and 12. For this judgment Section 10 is important and it is reproduced here-

"Section 10 Claims to Certain rights (1) Where the claim relates to a right in or over any land other than the following rights:

(a) a right of way;

(b) a right to water course, or to use of water;

(c) a right of pasture; or

(d) a right to forest produce; the Forest Settlement Officer shall, after considering the particulars of such claim, and the objections of the forest officer, if any, pass an order, admitting or rejecting the same wholly or in part after recording the reasons therefor.

(2) (a) If any claim is admitted wholly or in part under sub section (1), the Forest Settlement Officer may:

(i) accept the voluntary surrender of the right by the claimant or determine the amount of compensation payable for the surrender of the right of the claimant, as the case may be; or (ii) direct the exclusion of the land from the limits of the proposed forest; or (iii) acquire such land in the manner provided by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter in this sub section referred to as the said Act).

(b) For the purpose of acquiring such land:

(i) the acquisition shall be deemed to be for a public purpose; and the notification under Section 4 shall be deemed to be a notification under sub section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act;

(ii) the Forest Settlement Officer shall be deemed to be a Collector under the said Act, and the claimant shall be deemed to be a person interested and appearing before him in pursuance of a notice given under Section 9 of the said Act;

(iii) the provisions of Section 5A, 6, 7 and 8 of the said Act shall not be applicable; and

(iv) the Forest Settlement Officer with the consent of the claimant, or the court as defined in the said Act with the consent of the claimant and of the Government may, instead of money compensation, award compensation by the grant of any other land in exchange, by the grant of any right in or over land or partly by the grant of any land any right therein and partly by the payment of money."

22. Sub-section 2(a)(ii) gives him the power to exclude land from the limits of the proposed forest which again means that he should have clear and cogent data regarding the limits or boundaries etc. The power to acquire the land in the manner provided under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and to determine compensation is also conferred on the FS0. The Section 4 notification under the Forest Act will be deemed to be a notification under the L.A. Act 1894. [Section 10(2)(b)(i)] Thus these sections underline the need for absolute clarity in the notifications including the boundaries, extents, ownership, occupancy etc. This legal fiction of the Forest Act Sec 4 notification being "deemed" to be a Section 4(1) under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 imposes a positive duty on the Forest Department to ensure that the notice of the proposed acquisition should be clear with all the details or else the whole procedure will lapse and be held to be bad in law. The decision in Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v Mohd Shafi (1992) 2 SCC 168 [LQ/SC/1992/163] states the following in para 8:

"....The notification has to be published in the locality and particularly persons likely to be affected by the proposal have to be put on notice that such an activity is afoot. The notification is, thus, required to give with sufficient clarity not only the "public purpose" for which the acquisition proceedings are being commenced but also the "locality" where the land is situate with as full a description as possible of the land proposed to be acquired to enable the "interested" persons to know as to which land is being acquired and for what purpose and to take further steps under the by filing objections etc., since it is open to such persons to canvass the non-suitability of the land for the alleged "public purpose" also. If a notification under Section 4 (1) of theis defective and does not comply with the requirements of the, it not only vitiates the notification, but also renders all subsequent proceedings connected with the acquisition bad."

23. Although it is a decision under the National Highways Act, 1956 still this court opines that the following passage from Competent Authority v Barangore Jute Factory and Others (2005) 13 SCC 477 [LQ/SC/2005/1209] is also relevant in this contest:-

"...... So far as the question whether the impugned notification meets the requirement of Section 3-A(1) of theregarding giving brief description of land is concerned, we have already shown that even though plot numbers of lands in respect of each mouza are given, different pieces of land are acquired either as whole or in part. Wherever the acquisition is of a portion of a bigger piece of land, there is no description as to which portion was being acquired. Unless it is known as to which portion was to be acquired, the petitioners would be unable to understand the impact of acquisition or to raise any objection about user of the acquired land for the purposes specified under the or to make a claim for compensation. It is settled law that where a statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, the act has to be done in that manner alone. Every word of the statute has to be given its due meaning. In our view, the impugned notification fails to meet the statutory mandate. It is vague. The least that is required in such cases is that the acquisition notification should let the person whose land is sought to be acquired know what he is going to lose. The impugned notification in this case is, therefore, not in accordance with the law."

24. An appeal is provided to the District Court also against the orders as per Section 13. A certain finality is attached to the notification under Section 15 after this procedure is followed. Rights are also extinguished if they are not claimed as per Section 16. However under Sec. 23 of the the power to de-notify the area designated as a Reserve Forest is given to the State.

25. A reading of the counter affidavit and the documents filed do not show that this procedure so meticulously stipulated under the and rules was actually followed. The manner in which the initial Section 4 notification was finalized and published or the supporting data for the same is not all disclosed .This is particularly important as the petitioner's case is that this 111 acres was never notified by the Forest Department. How the boundaries are determined /fixed in this Section 4 Notification is not at all clear. Details of the procedure commencing with the service of notices under Section 6 and culminating in the Section 15 notification are not at all disclosed by the respondents in the course of their counter affidavit. No proof is forthcoming to show that the detailed procedure for service of notices etc was followed either after the 1970 (first) notification or the 1982 notification (second notification).

26. The document at page 243 of the paper book is a letter dt.30.06.1974 which says that proclamation was affixed on the notice board of the Taluk office only. Document at 240 for Navepothavaram says that the notification was affixed to the notice board only. So is the case with the document dt.19.01.1985 at page 236.

27. The importance of this notice, the procedures and the consequences were noticed in a judgment reported in Mysore Balakrishna Rao v The Secretary of State of India in Council, represented by the Collector of Cuddappah (1915) 29 Mad LJ 276 : AIR 1916 Mad 789 [LQ/MadHC/1915/449] (2) where it was held as follows:

"Under Sect. 6 he is required, besides publishing notices calling for claims at the Head-quarters of each Taluq in which any part of the land is situated and at every Town and Village in the neighborhood of such land, to serve special notice to the same effect on every known or reputed owner or occupier of any land included in or adjoining the land proposed to be constituted a reserved forest, or his agent, or manager; and it is not disputed that the plaintiff, as the registered Inamdar of the village in which the suit land was situated, should have received notice under this section. It should also be stated that there is no evidence that the steps which were being taken under the came to the knowledge of the plaintiff until more than five years after the issue of the proclamation under Sect. 6. In these circumstances it is, I think, clear that the Forest Settlement Officer, in the absence of the notice required by the section, had no jurisdiction to make any decision affecting the rights of the plaintiff."

28. The Forest Settlement Rules 1969 stipulate a detailed procedure for the enquiry to be conducted by the Settlement Officer. The procedure stipulated in Rules 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 makes it very clear that the Settlement Officer has to function virtually like a civil court. Rule 15 stipulates the manner of maintaining a case diary. The final order to be passed in case of a claim in land is mentioned in Section 10 (2) (a) and (b) of theitself. Section 8(2) states that the evidence should be recorded by the FSO in the manner provided by the CPC 1908 in appealable cases. The FSO thus has all the trappings of a court and is bound to strictly follow the procedures and the rules of natural justice too.

29. The procedure to be followed is so clearly stipulated in the and the Rules since the decision taken by him has very serious civil consequences including divesting a person of his/her rights in property. The reason for this is-as per the law of the land no person can be deprived of his property except in accordance with a procedure established by law.

30. If the case is examined against this backdrop of the statutory/rule position, it is clear that there is no record/evidence filed to show that all of this was done. The counters are also very silent. The case of the petitioner is that this Ac.111.03 cents of land was never notified at all. In reply to this averment nothing is forthcoming from the respondents to show that the procedures were followed in this case leading to a divesting of the petitioners claim. The FSOs letter dated 24.12.1970 addressed to the Tahsildar (pages 229/230) also explains this procedure and its importance. Apart from certificates from the village officers he also asks the Tahsildar to get acknowledgements from affected persons also. Yet not one acknowledgement is filed to show that even one person/ryot/occupier was served. This Court finds it hard to believe that for the entire 858 acres and its vicinity there is not one person or ryot who would be affected either in the land included or the adjoining land and is thus entitled to a notice.

31. Two other documents available on record are the letter dt.17.06.1973 (page 238 of paper book) stating that the Section 6 declaration is widely published in "all the adjoining villages". The second is a letter dt.30.05.1974 (page 243) certifying that no objections are received within six months (this is contrary to the notification which prescribes one year).

32. This mistake of 6 months can be overlooked since another notification was published under Sec 4 on 14.09.1982 setting out the Departments intention to notify 858 acres as a reserve forest. The certificates of publication for this 1985 notification also talk of publication by affixture only. No proof of service on any single individual is filed for the entire 858 acres and three villages.

33. This Court also has to state that this is an expropriatory legislation and thus it is to be strictly interpreted. If the procedure stipulated between Sections 4 to 15 of the Forest Act is followed and completed, all the rights on the land are deemed to have been extinguished. In fact in this interregnum i.e., in between Sections 4 to 15, no civil suit to establish a claim can be filed (Section 5), nor rights can be acquired over the land except by succession or by a prior contract or grant (Section 6). Only the Forest Settlement Officer is authorized and empowered to decide the claims and issues. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there is a very strict duty cast upon the officials of the Forest Department to scrupulously and meticulously follow the provisions of the Forest Act and the Rules made thereunder. There cannot simply publish the notice and/or republish the same without any survey numbers, boundaries and/or extents and state that the land is proposed to be declared as a reserve forest area. After due diligence a clear publication is to be made and then they will have to serve notices etc on all the persons likely to be affected including the occupier of the adjoining land, consider the objections if any that are raised and then decide the matter.

34. It is not in doubt that once a statute prescribes a method for doing a thing it must be done in that method or not all. This is a very well settled principle of law. For good order the judgment in Shiv Kumar Chadda v MCD (1993) 1 SCC 161 is relied upon without further burdening the record.

35. The presence of two notifications with a gap of more than a decade (1970 and 1982) compounds the problem. No clear explanation is forthcoming for this second Section 4 notification. Even more interesting is that after the second Section 4 notification the follow up notifications do not appear to have been issued. No proof is filed that the second notification culminated in a declaration/notification under Sec 15. In fact as per the letter dt.16.03.2009 of the Head of the Forest Department himself the draft Sec. 15 notification has been returned on 3-2-1988 with a request to furnish the survey number wise area to be included in the reserve forest. This has not been done for 20 years.

36. It is thus very clear that the issue has thus not attained any finality as the required notification under Section 15 is still not issued.

37. The following passage from the judgment in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited and Another v State of Maharashtra and Others (2014) 3 SCC 430 [LQ/SC/2014/105] is very relevant in these circumstances in this Court's opinion since this case deals with a similar issue. Para 55 and paras 66 to 68, are reproduced-

"55. A notice under Section 35(3) of the Forest Act is intended to give an opportunity to the owner of a forest to show cause why, inter alia, a regulatory or a prohibitory measure be not made in respect of that forest. It is important to note that such a notice presupposes the existence of a forest. The owner of the forest is expected to file objections within a reasonable time as specified in the notice and is also given an opportunity to lead evidence in support of the objections. After these basic requirements are met, the owner of the forest is entitled to a hearing on the objections. This entire procedure obviously cannot be followed by the State and the owner of the forest unless the owner is served with the notice. Therefore, service of a notice issued under Section 35(3) of the Forest Act is inherent in the very language used in the provision and the very purpose of the provision.

......

......

66. So also, in Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale (2009) 9 SCC 352 [LQ/SC/2009/1779] : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 749] it was held : (SCC pp. 356-57, para 11)

"11. It seems to be fairly settled that if a statute does not prescribe the time-limit for exercise of revisional power, it does not mean that such power can be exercised at any time; rather it should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. Where the legislature does not provide for any length of time within which the power of revision is to be exercised by the authority, suo motu or otherwise, it is plain that exercise of such power within reasonable time is inherent therein."

67. According to the State, a show-cause notice was issued to Godrej in 1957 (and assuming it was served) but no decision was taken thereon till 1975, that is, for about 18 years. This is an unusually long period and undoubtedly much more than a reasonable time had elapsed for enabling the State to take a decision on the show-cause notice. Therefore, following the law laid down by this Court, the show-cause notice must, for all intents and purposes, be treated as having become a dead letter and the seed planted by the State yielded nothing.

68. The entire problem may also be looked at from the perspective of the citizen rather than only from the perspective of the State. No citizen can reasonably be told after almost half a century that he/she was issued a show-cause notice (which was probably not served) and based on the show-cause notice his/her land was declared a private forest about three decades ago and that it vests in the State. Is it not the responsibility of the State to ensure that its laws are implemented with reasonable dispatch and is it not the duty of the State to appreciate that the statute books are not meant to be thrown at a citizen whenever and wherever some official decides to do so Basic principles of good governance must be followed by every member of the Executive branch of the State at all times keeping the interests of all citizens in mind as also the larger public interest."

38. This court is compelled to hold that the failure to follow the procedure is clear and striking. The statute book cannot be thrown at the citizen and then the State cannot pray that the writ should be dismissed. In view of these cumulative failures to follow the procedure under the it cannot be held that the parties rights are extinguished or that the Reserve Forest is duly notified. In fact the final Sec 15 notification is not yet issued in this case.

COUNTER AFFIDAVITS:

39. Apart from this if the counter affidavits filed by the respondents in this case are examined they make very interesting reading but further compound the problem for the respondents.

40. The 1st respondent agrees that in the Re-settlement Register Ac.111-03 cents it is mentioned as South Valluru Part-1 Estate Zamindar Garu and this is the name of the pattadar. However, he submits that since no specific name is entered in the RSR the land should be treated as Zamindari land. He also asserts that possession of the land immediately vested in the Government in the year 1949 after the Estate Abolition Act came into force. It is also mentioned in para-4 of the counter affidavit that there is a difference in mentioning survey numbers while issuing a Notification under Section 4 of theand survey work is being carried out jointly by the Revenue Department and the Forest Department.

41. Coming to the adangals, it is mentioned that the mere fact that the purchasers names are entered in the adangals would not confer title and that the mistake will be rectified.

42. Further in page 9 of the counter affidavit it is mentioned that during the notification the Forest Department mentioned the Nizam dominion survey numbers instead of Re-Survey Numbers. The process is supposedly going on to rectify the error jointly by the Forest Department and the Revenue Department. This counter affidavit was filed in 2010.

43. The 2nd respondent has also filed his counter affidavit. This was verified in October, 2009. In page No. 2 of the counter affidavit it is mentioned that a joint inspection was conducted with the Forest Department, Survey Department, Mines and Geology Department and Revenue Department and the issue is still pending with the higher authorities. In paragraph-4 at page 3 of the counter affidavit the deponent states that the entire Ac.858-00 cents is notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act, but the Gazette Notification does not specify the details of the survey numbers. Therefore, there is no clarity with regard to the survey numbers claimed by the writ petitioners as to whether it is a private land or notified land. Ultimately, in paragraph 5 it is stated that once the dispute is cleared and the classification of the land is informed to the office of the Sub-Registrar the pending document would be processed in accordance with the Stamp Act and the Registration Act.

44. The 3rd respondent-Divisional Forest Officer has filed his counter which was affirmed in June, 2010. In his counter it is mentioned as follows:

"The south Valluru zamindar has handed over 716.11 acres of the land to the Government during 1949. The Government has handed over the lands to the Forest Department on 15-10-1951. The said sy.no.86 is a part of the estate of South Valluru zamindar and is in possession of Forest Department since 15-10-1951 without any interruption. The whole confusion has arisen due to mentioning of Nizam Domain Sy.nos. in forest records. It is submitted that the 716.11 acres of land belonged to the following sy.nos. of the Nizam Domain.

R.S.No.	Extent in Acs.
1/1	128.95
1/3	3.12
3/1	143.48
5/3	4.93
20	3.21
22	202.56
99	229.86
Total:	716.11

It is submitted that the Nizam Domain nos. were changed and new survey numbers were assigned. Subsequently these survey numbers were also changed and new survey numbers were assigned by Revenue Department.

It is submitted that the lands mentioned in the Writ Petition were originally belonging to Nizam's domain situated in Sy. No. 99 of Kethanakonda Village, Bezawada Taluk. Thereafter the said land was resurveyed by the Settlement authorities and new survey numbers were assigned as Sy. No. 77, 67, 74, 75, 76 and 66 of Navapothavaraqm village. Again resurvey was conducted by the Survey and Settlement Department during the year 1928 and the subject lands were assigned survey numbers as 84 ,85, 86 and 87 of Navapothavaram Village of Bezawada Taluk. It is submitted that originally a total of 229.86 acres of survey number 99 of Kothanakonda Village of Nizam's domain was taken over by the Government and handed over to the Forest Department. Subsequently this area was assigned Sy. Nos. 77, 67, 74, 75, 76 and 66. Again the Sy. Nos. , were changed as Sy. No. 84 ,85, 86 and 87. The correct position is as follows:

Sy.No.	Corresponding Old Sy.No.	Corresponding Nizam Domain Sy.No.	Area
84	77	99	85.56
85	67	99	29.39
86	74 and 75	99	111.03
87	76	99	1.07
87	66	99	1.38
Total:		99	229.86 Acres

The petitioner is claiming 111.03 acres corresponding to new sy.no.86 which is corresponding to old sy.no.74 and 75 which was earlier a part of sy.no.99, surrendered by the south Valluru Zamindar under Estate Abolition Act 1948. The petitioner is trying to take advantage of confusion caused by new sy.nos. As seen supra, these 111.03 acres land is part of the area under control of the Forest Department since last 60 years."

45. In page No. 5 it is stated that the initial proclamation was given on 14.05.1970 under Section 4 of the Forest Act. Thereafter under Section 6 of the Forest Act a proclamation was given on 04.03.1971 and it is clarified that the same was affixed in the Taluq Head Quarters of the Vijayawada on 20.06.1971 and also in the village of Kondapalli, Kethanakonda and Kotikalapudi.

46. Due to some mistakes it is stated that a Section 4 Notification was again published in the District Gazette on 14.09.1982 and the extent of land was shown as Ac.858-00 cents.

47. A reading of these three counter affidavits, which are filed by responsible officials holding high offices, clearly show that there are patent errors occurring at every stage. They admit that instead of survey numbers "domain" numbers were mentioned but no documentary proof is filed either for the Nizam Dominion numbers, the new survey number or the resurvey numbers. No correlation data is filed. Details or the conclusions of the surveys mentioned are not clearly furnished. The reason or reasons for a fresh notification etc are again not spelt out. It is settled law that mere pleading cannot take the place of proof.

48. DOCUMENTS:-

(a) A Joint Inspection Report is filed pertaining to a review meeting held on 04.08.2007, filed at page No. 85 of the paper booklet. Point No. 1 (4) shows that R.Sy. No. 86 measures Ac.111.03 cents, Point No. 3 shows that Forest Department fixed its carens in the patta lands. It is also mentioned that the Forest Department has wrongly fixed the carens in Sy. Nos. 61 to 70. Point No. 5 states that the above mentioned carens should be changed and gazette publication is to be issued. In Point No. 6, it is also mentioned that there is a difference between survey numbers. In point No. 8 there is a specific reference to R.Sy. No. 86 an extent of Ac.111-03 cents of land. It is mentioned that the Forest Department has to mention to what extent of the area they have fixed the carens in the ground. In Point No. 10 it is mentioned that the present survey numbers have to be specified in the resettlement register.

(b) Letter dated 18.02.2017 (page 362). This is a letter addressed by the Tahsildar to the Sub-Collector. It also refers to a Joint Inspection for fixing the boundaries of the forest and revenue lands. Under the heading "Several Aspects observed by Revenue and Forest Departments" in Point No. 2 at page 5 of this latter (paper book page 366)it is clearly mentioned that even though the said extent of Ac.111-03 cents was not included in the Forest notification, the department has wrongly imbedded carens and included the extent in their Notification map of the Forest Department. Another annexure to this letter is the actual Joint Inspection Report. At page No. 2 of the report (Page No. 345 of the paper book ) the following is mentioned:

"The Forest Carons bearing numbers 49, 50, 57 to 81 that are intended to be embedded on the Western side of the above mentioned Western boundary Re-survey number 114, 115, 116, 118, 121, 122, 123, 126 were embedded by mistake in the Patta lands bearing Re-Survey numbers 114, 115, 116, 118, 121, 122, 123, 126 and in the Eastern portion of Re-Survey Number 86."

Both the documents clearly state carens were erected in "patta lands".

(c) Letter dated 10.03.2017. (page 370) This letter is addressed by the Sub-Collector and in-charge Forest Settlement Officer to the District Collector, Krishna and at page 3( No. 372 of the paper book) and the following is mentioned:

"It is noticed that, as per the RSR of the Navepothavaram village, which was prepared in the year 1932, the survey number 86 is a rythuwari patta land and the notification on southern boundary runs adjacent to survey no's 86 and 126 of Navepothavaram and Zami Navepothavaram. Forest block proposals were prepared basing on the survey made in A.P. Forest Act (Andhra Area) i.e., Madras Forest Act 1882. As per section 3 of Madras Forest Act, only lands at the disposal of the Government are to be notified under Forest Act After observing these points there is no chance to include the survey number 86 in notified area of Navepothavaram forest block and also the boundary description of Navepothavaram forest block limited the area for 858 acres confirms the same. In view of the circumstances, revised boundary descriptions with geo coordinates without baring and distances have been prepared and submitting herewith for publication of the errata notification to the section-4 of A.P. Forest Act in respect of Navepothavaram Forest Block for 858.20 Acres (or) 374.41 Hectares."

(d) A Joint Inspection Report dated 23.06.2017, (page 302 of paper book) regarding the findings of inspection conducted on 16.06.2017. In conclusion an errata proposal submitted by the Forest Settlement Officer basing on Joint Survey conducted by Forest, Revenue and Survey officials may be considered for further action. This was forwarded on 10.07.2017 by the District Collector to the Chief Conservator of Forest.

(e) Letter dated 26.01.2018.(page 324) This letter was addressed by the Divisional Forest Officer, to the Chief Conservator of Forests and a point wise reply was given to the various issues raised. In point No. 4 it is mentioned that Survey No. 86 (Old No. 99) is not included for the reason that it is not part of the proposed Navepothavaram forest block. It is a settlement patta as reported by the Sub-Collector in his report dated 10.03.2017. An errata is proposed for publication as per Sec 4 of the.

(f) Letter dated 15.02.2018.(page 380 paper book) This letter was addressed by the Divisional Forest Officer to the Chief Conservator of the Forest, Rajahmundry Circle. In point 1 the error in the boundary between Navepaotavaram and Kondapalli R F on the ground , is mentioned. With regard to the point Nos. 3 and 4 the following is stated:

"3. Whether any Rytuwari patta was issued under section 11(a) of E.A. Act, 1948 in respect of the land mentioned in the Sy No. 86 of Navepothavaram village.

It is submitted that Sub Collector & Forest Settlement Officer (1/c) in his report Re No. 916/72B Dated 10-03-2017 reported that the area in Sy No. 86 is a Rytuwari patta. It is further submitted that EA. Act, 1948 does not apply in respect of this patta since Navepothavaram village is not Zaminadari village, it is Government Revenue village.

It is further submitted that after enactment of the Estate Abolition Act the Government handed over 716 Acres to the Forest Department on 15-10-1951 for further management. Thereafter Section 4 proposals were submitted for 858 Acres.

4. Whether any claim petition was received by the Forest Settlement Officer in respect of Sy No. 86, if so the details thereof along with recommendation of FSO may be furnished. No section 15 proposals were prepared in full shape. There are no details regarding claims information in this office records."

(g) In Point No. 5 while dealing with the counter filed in the present Writ Petition the following is mentioned:

"...... It is further submitted that the counter was prepared based on P/Number (Dominion Number), Sy. Number and R.S. Number with reference to the map prepared with reference to bearings & distances which is not correlated with map with reference to description portion. Hence it can't be agreeable at present. The contention of our department in the counter affidavit is completely based on map not with reference to ground features. Further it is submitted that the RS No. 86 is patta land in Revenue village, it is not part of Zamindar lands. In Resettlement Navepothavaram village RS Nos. 1-87 are of Revenue village and 88-180 are estate lands. Estate lands handed over to government under E.A. Act provision i.e., 88-180 and not RS No. 86. Thereby the RS N.86 is in Revenue village as per RSR and 88-180 are estate lands as per fair adangal.

It is further submitted that section-4 notification is merely intention of the Government to constitute certain land as reserved forest. The area proposed in section-4 Notification may be altered till Section-15 Notification is confirmed. The following is a case law in the context. "the notification under section-4 cannot take the place of notification under Section 20, as the notification under section 4, merely indicates the intention of the Government to constitute certain land as reserved forest. Mansed Oragons vs. The King, AIR 1961 Pant 380; 31 PLT 128,"

(h) As far as "facts to be noticed for errata publication of Navepothavaram Forest block" the following is mentioned:

"Some facts to be noticed for errata publication of Navepothavaram Forest Block:-

In the Navepothavaram forest block, there are 22 and 99 "D"Numbers (Nizam Dominion numbers) towards south western side, which were included in the notification. These "D"numbers were reclassified as Revenue survey numbers in the year 1927 after its resurvey as R.S.R. In this process, the "D"numbers 22 was renamed as R.S. No,83 and "D" number 99 was renamed as R.S. Nos 84, 85 and 86 in the year 1927 itself.

As per the boundary description 22 and 99 portion of "D"number were included into the notification, i.e., R.S. No. 83, 84 and 85 were included in the notification and excluding R.S. No. 86 in the revenue itself, which is a patta land. Till today, the notification was recognized with "D"numbers only without considering the Resurvey numbers which is an error. Even though Resettlement was carried out in 1921 for Revenue village and in 1958 for: Zamindari village, the reason for mentioning old D. Nos in notification is not forthcoming.

There are two villages, i.c., Navepothavaram and Zami Navepothavaram villages. Navepothavaram is a revenue village and Zami Navepothavaram is a Zamindari village. These two are of two different natures. During Estate Abolition Act, 1948 Zamindari lands were abolished and some of such abolished lands which were under the control of Revenue department were notified as "Forest". The Zami Navepothavaram lands, which were notified under "forest" were towards the eastern side of notification and Navepothavaram lands were towards the western side of notification.

It is further submitted that during the process of notifications in the past years, it was identified by only "D"numbers as 22 and 99 portion was taken into consideration even though those numbers were renamed as Revenue Survey Numbers in the year 1927. Moreover during its notification process, no field work was done to identify the cairns of Kondapali Reserve Forest which is a common boundary to Navepothavaram Forest Block. (The same was recorded as NB: at the end of the Notification). Now during the joint inspection we could locate those Kondapalli RF cairns without any deviation. Due to this mistake, some of the lands towards northern side were left off, and to meet the shortage area as per notification, some of the patta lands, which were private in nature and out of forest notification were included ic., R.S. No. 86.

The Forest Settlement officer, Krishna and west Godavari has verified the field and also given clarification regarding RS No. 86, that as per section 3 of Madras Forest Act, (i.e., process of notification was started in 1963) only lands at the disposal of Government land to be notified under Forest, and hence there is no chance of including R.S. No. 86 in the notified Area.

Moreover, there are some court cases pending in Novepothavaram Forest Block that the petitioners claim those have pattadar pass books using R.S. Nos from the revenue department. The department contesting with old "D"numbers without considering RS Nos and FLR. Hence without errata with new numbers, it is highly difficult to contest in court cases.

As mentioned earlier, the notification with distances and bearings are also wrong and it has a closing error as the map closes at station No. 7 instead of station No. 1."

49. It is thus clear from a reading of all these documents that patent errors have occurred at various stages. The letters mentioned above are all addressed by officers with the knowledge of the ground reality.

50. It is also interesting to note that even as late as in 2017/2018 recommendations are being made for an errata notification for commencing the procedure under Sec 4 of the itself. This Writ is of the year 2009.

ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVITS :

51. This Court also notices that I.A. No. 1 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner to file certain additional material papers etc. Counters to this were filed by an officer of the rank of Special Chief Secretary in January, 2020.

52. The counter affidavit filed the Special Chief Secretary raised very interesting contentions. He submits that adangal has no evidentiary value. He also takes the plea that the 1962 document executed by the Zamindar is defective and that the adangal issued by the Tahsildar is a product of fraud. Similarly, with regard to the report of Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records he condemns the report by stating that the same is contrary to the provisions of Survey and Boundary Act and that Assistant Director of Survey for extraneous considerations has issued the said certificate. (A perusal of the certificate dated 18.05.2000 (page 83) reveals that the officer merely mentioned the details as per the RSR and the subsequent sale. He states that the assessed tax is being paid by the purchaser).

53. The deponent also mentions that the Joint Survey conducted on the application of M. Nagabhusan Rao is also incorrect. He condemns the letter of the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada, dated 10.03.2017 also. He states that the concerned revenue, forest and other officials are hand-in glove with the writ petitioner. Therefore, an enquiry by Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) is necessary according to him. The letter of the Sub-Collector, dated 10.03.2017, is also said to have been withdrawn in view of the conclusions reached in the meeting of the Chief Secretary, dated 22.08.2019 (which is long after the filing of the writ petition). To the same effect is the additional counter affidavit.

54. This Court notices that except for stating fraud/hand in glove action etc., no concrete action appears to have been taken by the respondents on any of the reports or the officers concerned. If at all the State was of the opinion that all the records and reports or recommendations relied upon or mentioned above are incorrect and are the product of a nexus (either unholy or otherwise) they should have initiated action immediately after they came to the said conclusion . The very fact that no action was ever initiated against any of the officials makes it very clear that all these pleas are a mere afterthought. Even otherwise a bald allegation of fraud or of some alleged nexus without clear and categorical details of the same cannot be accepted by a Court of law. The pleading of the alleged fraudulent/wrongful action should be clear and the proof should also be clear and categorical. The material available with the State to come to these conclusions is not disclosed or pleaded. In the absence of any such details, this Court is of the opinion that the post litigation statements made by a Special Chief Secretary in the course of his counter affidavit cannot be accepted and are rejected as post litigation afterthoughts.

55. The absence of any proof whatsoever in support of these grave allegations is also strikingly clear.

Law on the Subject-

56. The law on the subject is also well settled. By a cumulative effect of the declarations under the Forest Act the State will deprive a person of his right in property. In such cases as mentioned earlier the statutory mandate should be scrupulously and strictly complied with. It is also an expropriatory legislation and hence it must be strictly interpreted. Paragraphs 14 and 15 the Judgment reported in Sukh Dutta Ratra v State of H.P. (2022) 7 SCC 508 [LQ/SC/2022/458 ;] are considered relevant and important. They are reproduced here.

"14. It is the cardinal principle of the rule of law, that nobody can be deprived of liberty or property without due process, or authorisation of law. The recognition of this dates back to the 1700s to the decision of the King's Bench in Entick v. Carrington [Entick v. Carrington, 1765 EWHC (KB) J98 : 95 ER 807] and by this Court in Wazir Chand v. State of H.P. [Wazir Chand v. State of H.P., (1955) 1 SCR 408 [LQ/SC/1954/76] : AIR 1954 SC 415 [LQ/SC/1954/76] ] Further, in several judgments, this Court has repeatedly held that rather than enjoying a wider bandwidth of lenience, the State often has a higher responsibility in demonstrating that it has acted within the confines of legality, and therefore, not tarnished the basic principle of the rule of law.

15. When it comes to the subject of private property, this Court has upheld the high threshold of legality that must be met, to dispossess an individual of their property, and even more so when done by the State. In Bishan Das v. State of Punjab [Bishan Das v. State of Punjab, (1962) 2 SCR 69 [LQ/SC/1961/197] : AIR 1961 SC 1570 [LQ/SC/1961/197] ] this Court rejected the contention that the petitioners in the case were trespassers and could be removed by an executive order, and instead concluded that the executive action taken by the State and its officers, was destructive of the basic principle of the rule of law."

57. If the actions of the respondents are examined against this higher threshold of legality that is prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Court is of the firm opinion that the respondents have totally failed to satisfy the Court in this aspect. They are attempting to deprive a person's rights in the property without following the due process. Even as on date it is clear that there is no finality attached to the issue. The recommendations for publication of errata and for conducting a resurvey have been pending since 2007 onwards till 2017/2018. After the first writ petition was allowed the Divisional Forest Officer by his order dated 30.03.1998 said that the Forest Department is not the competent department to conduct the survey. Even thereafter no finality has been achieved. The first Sec. 4 notification was on 09.06.1970, the second Sec. 4 notification was on 14.09.1982 and thereafter also the officers are recommending errata publication for the same Sec.4 notification once again. At the risk of repetition it is stated that the Sec 4 is the initiation of the process and is an expression of intention by the State to declare a certain area as a Reserve Forest. This stage itself has not been crossed so far after 53 years (1970 to 2023). By any stretch of imagination this cannot be said to be a reasonable period to finalize/conclude the issue. Following Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., case (7 supra) this Court has to hold that the Section 4 Notifications are virtual dead letters.

58. If the impugned letter, dated 16.03.2009, is also seen it is clear that the Principal Chief Conservator himself has found a number of errors. In page No. 2 of this letter the following is mentioned.

"The Forest Settlement Officer had submitted U/s. 15 notification which was returned vide PCCF reference No. 108733/97-J1, dt. 03.02.1988 with a request to furnish the survey No. wise area to be included in Reserve Forest. The Conservator of Forests has failed to furnish the information in last 20 years. The Sy. No. wise information furnished by Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam vide his Ref. No. 77/20003 dt.22.01.2008, does not tally with the survey No. wise details at the time of notification U/s. 4 and hence cannot be agreed. Therefore, the Chief Conservator of Forests Rajahmundry is requested to examine the whole case in detail."

59. He again directed the Chief Conservator, Rajahmundry to request the revenue officials to survey the entire "Ac.1292.81" cents by mentioning 7 points in page 2 After the said survey is done he directed that the map of the area notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act should be superimposed to trace the survey numbers of the block. In the opinion of this Court, this will lead to further litigation. The two Notifications under Section 4 of the Forest Act contain many defects as can be seen from the documents and the further recommendations of the officers and also the contents of this letter itself. The procedure stipulated has also not been followed for inviting the objections etc. More than one survey report has pointed out the errors. In that view of the matter, this court is of the opinion that superimposing the survey number on the notified area under Section 4 of theis not correct.

60. During the course of the hearing a report of a study conducted by A.P. Space Application Centre (an A.P Government Department) report has been filed. An overlaying analysis of the four maps supplied shows 3 to 4 clear and categorical differences in the boundaries/areas. This is visible from page 12 of the report which is pictographically reproduced hereunder. This document, in the opinion of this Court, supports the contentions of the petitioner that a survey and superimposition of the map is not a solution to the problem.

PETITIONERS CASE-vis-a-vis DOCUMENTS FILED:

61. Apart from the admissions in the documents which are mentioned in the earlier part of the order, the petitioners rely upon the Re-settlement Register (RSR) of the Nave Pothavaram village dated 22-8-1932 (filed at page No. 184 of the paper book) to assert their title. Learned senior counsel points out that new Sy. No. 86 is the old Sy. No. 74 and 75. By relying upon the columns 8, 9 and 10 of the RSR at page No. 188 of the Re-settlement Register, Learned counsel argues that this Ac.111.03 cents is assessed to tax and tax payable is Rs. 124.15 annas. The name of the pattadar is mentioned in Column No. 10 as South Valluru Part-1 Estate to Zamindar.

62. In addition, learned senior counsel relies upon the 'Descriptive Memoir' of Navepothavaram, filed at page Nos. 194 to 196 of the paper book. This is also dated 22.08.1932. Column No. 6 deals with ryotwari holdings. Holdings are classified on the basis of tax that they are assessed to pay. In the column, in "total Rs. 250 and less but over Rs. 100", there is one holding measuring Ac.111.03 cents and it is assessed to tax at Rs. 124-15 annas. These two documents are relied upon in support of the submissions that land is recognized as private land and that it is assessed to tax that Rs. 124.15 annas. The name of South Valluru Part-I Zamindar is also shown in Column No. 10 as pattadar. This classification of the land and its assessment to tax is strongly relied upon by the learned senior counsel as indicative of the fact that the land is private ryotwari land and hence assessed to tax. As a corollary it is urged that the land could not be taken over under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act 1948; as it is the private land of the Zamindar. It is asserted that the Estate Abolition Act was enacted to abolish the Zamindari system, to abolish the intermediary and to bring the State in direct contact with the peasant/ryot. But in this case the land is assessed to tax long before this act since it is private land and not part of the Zamindari.

63. It is also important to note that these are official documents prepared by the Special Settlement Officer and published by the State itself .In the court's opinion Sec 35 and Sec 114 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act come to the petitioner's aid in these circumstances. Nothing to the contrary had been filed by the State to dispel these submissions or the contents of these documents.

64. As per the judgment reported in G.Satyanarayana and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary, Revenue Department and others 2014 (3) ALT 473 [LQ/TelHC/2014/639] , the Re-settlement Register (R S R) is a fundamental document in the Revenue Administration which carries a certain evidentiary value.

65. The following paragraphs of the judgment are important:

"60 (i) Settlement Register: This register is also termed as Diglot or 'A' Register. It is the foundation on which the whole revenue administration rests. It forms complete recording of accurate information as to whether it is Government or inam land, dry, wet, unassessed or poramboke, source of irrigation, class and sort of soil, taram, rate per acre, extent etc. It records every separate holding, whether large or small. The area is given in acres and cents and the assessment thereon stands in parallel columns. If a single field on the survey map is divided among ryots, a special letter is allotted to each ryot with a separate line giving full particulars of his holding.

60 (iii) Memoir and village maps: This memoir is prepared in English giving full description and details touching each village and its settlement and an account of all lands held revenue rent free or on favorable tenure is also printed. A sketch map of the village showing the tanks and channels and all similarly assessed fields laid out into blocks is attached to it. It is an index to the Field Measurement Book (FMB).

137. Conclusion on Point No. 1(a) and (b)

........................................................................

(iv) In respect of estate and inam lands, ryotwari pattas/occupancy rights certificates constitute title. In case of protected tenants under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act 1950, the protected tenants having ownership certificates hold absolute title.

(v) In the absence of patta, revenue records form the basis for determining title. A-Register/Diglot and Ledger/Chitta in Andhra Area and Sethwar, Supplementary Sethwar and Wasool Baqui in Telangana Area are the basic settlement record which provide basis for subsequent entries in the Village Accounts. Before integration of revenue record, No. 1 and No-.2 Accounts (old), No. 3 Account, No. 10 Account and Register of Holdings in Andhra Area and Pahani patrika, Chowfasla, Faisal Patti and Khasra Pahani in Telangana Area are relevant Village Accounts for determination of title. After integration of the Village Accounts under the 1971 Act, (i) Printed Diglot or A-Register, (ii) Village Account No. 1, (iii) Village Account No. 2, (iv) No. 3 Register and (v) Village Account No. 4-Register of Holdings constitute relevant record.

(vi) Between two rival claimants relying upon the entries in revenue record, the person whose name is recorded in the basic records such as A-Register and Record of Holdings and their successors-in-interest will be considered as the rightful owners. In deciding such disputes, the revenue authorities and the courts need to carefully weigh the evidence relied upon by the rival parties with reference to the record referred to hereinbefore. Even in cases of disputes between the Government and private persons, the above referred record constitute material evidence in determination of title.

150. What is discernible from these provisions is that all lands other than 'estate lands' are treated as Government lands irrespective of whether they were in occupation of ryots and whether pattas were granted to them or not. In other words, Jirayati land as mentioned in Column No. 2 of A-Register/Diglot/Sethwar is termed as "Government land" in the RSR. It would therefore be a travesty of reality if the Government assumes that by mere description of the land as "Government" or "Sarkari" in column Nos. 4 or 5, as the case may be, in the RSR, the land belongs to and vested in it. If the literal meaning of the phrase 'Government land' is to be ascribed to the said column, then, the column pertaining to 'Name of pattadar or inamdar' would be rendered nugatory. The correct way of understanding the term 'Government land' in the RSR is that it takes into its sweep all lands including patta lands and those in possession of private persons other than the inam lands. If the pattadar column shows the names of pattadars they are private lands belonging to the persons named therein or their successors in interest.

(emphasis supplied)

66. These passages of this reported judgment support the case of the petitioner. This is the record of a settlement operation of 1932 which in many ways is the basic document available in the Revenue Administration of the State. As mentioned earlier nothing to the contrary has also been filed by the State.

67. This Court also notices that at page No. 450 of paper book there is a joint survey report and review of the meeting held in the office of the District Collector on 04.08.2007 regarding the deciding the boundaries of the Forest and Revenue in Sy. Nos. 83 to 86 of Nave Pothavaram village. Para-1 deals with various extents and R.S. No. 86=111-03 cents and it is mentioned as land of South Vallur Part-1 Estate of Zamindar. It is mentioned that Forest carens are partly fixed in Sy. Nos. 85 and 86 and that the carens were wrongly fixed in Sy. Nos. 61 to 70. In para 5 it is mentioned that when the above mentioned carens are changed the gazette publication should be issued. There is also a difference between the survey numbers mentioned in the Gazette publication and present R.Survey numbers. In paragraph 8 it is clearly clarified that since the R.Sy. No. 86 is Ac.111-03 cents of South Valluru in part-I happened to be "declared as the land of the Zamindar", the Forest Department has to declare in the Notification as to what extent of the area they fixed the carens in the ground. Para 10 talks of the need for mentioning the present survey numbers. Thus the respondents realize the need for a re-look at the issue. This document and its contents also support the petitioners' case. It is clear that from 1932 this fact situation held good.

68. Other documents are also considered in the earlier part of this judgment which show that this classification of the land of Ac.111.03 cents as the Zamindars land has been in the notice of the authorities since long.

69. Respondents' further submission is that the petitioner's predecessors should have applied for a patta under the Estate Abolition Act after the abolition of the Estate is also not acceptable for the reason that the land is already classified as the private land and is assessed to tax. The document filed is a record of the settlement operations in 1932 which is much prior to the Estate Abolition Act of 1948. This land is shown as Ryotwari land and in column 10 of the RSR titled-"number of patta or title deed and name of registered holder or inamdar"-the zamindars name is clearly mentioned. No contrary evidence etc is produced to rebut these entries. Hence this Court has to hold that the land is the land of the zamindar outside the estate/zamindari and was separately assessed to tax much before the 1948 Act. This Act applied only to Estates and the land outside the estate would not be affected by this act These are personal properties of the Zamindar and are thus outside the purview of the Estate and the .Consequently they do not also vest in the Government under Sec 3 of the. Paras 60 and 150 of the judgment in G Satyanarayana also support this conclusion.

70. The Respondents claim that the Estate held by Zamindar was notified U/s 1(4) of the EA Act, 1948 on 17.01.1950 and thus all the lands of the Zamindar vest in the State. However, a reading of the notification (Pg 155) shows the following:

"South Vallur Estate-Part I, consisting of eleven villages in Bandar taluk and five villages in Vijayawada Taluk in Krishna District ( This is also a notice under the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act and not a notice under the 1948 Act or the earlier Act)" The second notification is dt.15-8-1950 (page 157) under 0the 1948 deals with taking over of NORTH VALLUR EAST and WEST and SOUTH VALLUR PART 2 (at 159)."

71. These notifications do not state with clarity if the Nave Pothavaram village was notified. It is not clear which villages were actually notified. Only Part-I and Part 2 is notified and that too without naming any of the eleven/five villages in Part 1. Same is the case with North/South Vallur. The petitioner's specific case is that this land was never notified. The respondents did not file any proof to show that this Ac 111.03 cents was a part of or covered by either of the two notifications under the 1948 Act. The respondents have not chosen to file any document to show that this 111.03 was actually notified and that consequently it vested in the Government. The 1948 Act provides a clear procedure for the ryotwari settlement, taking over the estate, including the survey of the estate, assessment of the land revenue, the payment of compensation (interim and final) etc At the core of this activity is the Survey and Settlement of the Estate to determine all these issues. Nothing is filed to show that this extent of land (111.03) was part of the Estate taken over, that it was localized in the Survey or that it was considered to finalize the assessment/settlement etc. In addition it is noticed that the counter filed by the 3rd respondent states in para 3 that "this land" was handed over to the Government by the Zamindar in 1949 itself which is before the two notifications mentioned above. In turn this was supposedly handed over to the Forest Department in October 1951. Neither of these is supported by any record. Both the taking over and handing over must be borne out by record but nothing is filed. The specific case of the petitioners as is evidenced by para 2-5 of the reply affidavit and elsewhere is that this land measuring Ac.111.03 cents was never notified either under the Estate Abolition Act 1948 or the Forest act. In the light of all of the above and the admissions which are not controverted or disputed effectively this Court has to hold that this land of 111.03 was not notified under the 1948 Act or the Forest Act.

72. In addition there is a referred sale deed of 1962, subsequent sale, entry in 10(3) account dt.8-7-2021 showing the land as patta land and the admissions of officers of the State in various documents which also lend support to the petitioner's case that this Ac.111.03 cents is private patta land.

CONCLUSIONS:

73. This Court holds that the mandated statutory procedures under Sections 4 to 15 of the Forest Act read with rules thereunder have not been followed. The Section 4 notification should give clear details of the land proposed to be notified. It is not an empty formality. Thereafter, notices should be served strictly in accordance with the said Section 6 (2) and the Rules framed thereunder on every person named therein. Failure to do so has vitiated the Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Forest Act and all the further/consequential actions. Since the Forest Act in Sections 4 to 15 prescribes the procedure which will deprive a person of his rights in the land, the prescribed procedures in the sections and the rules should be scrupulously and methodically followed without even the slightest deviation.

74. A methodical survey with the assistance of the Government records pertaining to the area and the revenue officials should be conducted before a Notification under Section 4 is issued by the Forest Department. Merely because the Section authorizes the authorities to give a brief description, it does not mean a 'vague' description of the proposed area to be notified would suffice. The notifications should contain sufficient details of the land, extents proposed to be notified with Survey numbers etc., since this notice is akin to a 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, the notices must be served as mentioned in the and the Rules. The enquiry should also be strictly as per the and the Rules. The record of the enquiry must also be carefully maintained. A failure at any stage can lead to the entire action being held to be unlawful. This has actually happened in this case.

75. In view of the cumulative failures noticed in this matter, which are both legal and factual, this Court is of the opinion that the land of an extent of Ac.111-03 cents in RS No. 86 of Nave Pothavaram village in Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District is not notified as a Forest Area and that the respondent State and/or the Forest Department do not have rights over the same. The petitioners' claim over this land is upheld. The R.S.R.; the admissions in various documents etc., led this Court to this conclusion. The respondents are also directed not to interfere with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of this land of Ac 111.03 cents. Prayer 2 is granted.

76. The impugned letter dated 16.03.2009 itself requests the Chief Conservator of Forests to get a survey done with the revenue authorities of the entire area (Ac.1292.81 cents). This Court also notices that there are serious issues about the boundaries of the land, errors in the surveys, adoption of Nizams dimensions, survey numbers, failure to note re-survey numbers etc., as mentioned at various places in the material/pleadings before this Court. Requests for re survey etc are visible at various places and at various times.

77. There is a claim for 111.03 acres from the petitioners while the Forest department is claiming 858 acres as a reserve forest. The correct extents of these lands have to be clearly localized and separated on the ground. The boundaries need to be fixed with certainty and clarity. The final notification under Section 15 also must be definite and specific. It should specify according to the boundary marks or otherwise the limits of the Forest.

"Section 15-

.....

the Government may publish a notification specifying definitely according to the boundary marks erected or otherwise, the limits of the forest which it is intended to reserve and declaring the same to be reserved from a date to be fixed by such notification and from the date so fixed, such forest shall be deemed to be a reserved forest. (2) Copies of the notification shall also be published in the District Gazette, if any, and in the manner provided for the proclamation under Section 6."

78. Hence to achieve a quietus to this vexed issue and to do complete justice to the petitioners and also the State this Court directs there should be a comprehensive and full-fledged survey to locate/localize the entire Ac.111-03 cents of land and a clear demarcation of the same on the ground. At his own cost the petitioner is given the option of engaging the services of the Survey of India or the AP SAC or of any reputed survey organization for this survey.

79. The respondents who are also staking a claim are directed to provide all assistance for the survey including but not limited to furnishing of all the records, past survey reports, notifications, information of the Nizam survey numbers, re survey numbers, basis for the erection of the Carens etc. Necessary manpower must also be deputed by the respondents to assist the survey. If the Survey of India or others cannot conduct the survey the respondent State should conduct this survey on its own with its resources since it also has a claim for declaring the land as Forest Area.

80. In either case the Survey should be completed within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

81. After the above mentioned survey is completed, if the respondents so desire to notify land as a reserve forest, the Forest Department should carefully and scrupulously follow the procedures stipulated under Sections 4 and 6 of the Forest Act and the other Sections of the before coming to the conclusions necessary for issuing the Notification under Section 15 of thefor notifying an area as Reserve Forest Area. The procedural safeguards suggested should be followed carefully both in letter and spirit.

82. After the survey is completed and the Ac.111-03 cents is identified on the ground along with its clear boundaries the 2nd respondent shall also take steps to register the four sale deeds, which are bearing Nos. P91, P96, P97 and P98 of 2009 and complete the registration in all respects if the said documents are otherwise in order. Prayer 1 is also granted with this condition.

83. The last prayer is for an order against the superimposition of the new survey on the old Sec.4 notification is also granted. This court has directed the fresh survey etc and hence the super imposition etc may not be relevant and/or needed in the circumstances. This prayer is also allowed. The survey will result in the correct localisation of the extents, with the boundaries.

84. With the above observations the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

85. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.