IX had been issued number served on the party.
5793 of 1979 and 637 of 1982, the Division Bench disposed of the Writ Appeals by the order which reads as follows Following the dicision in W.A. Nos.355 and 356 of 1982 dated April 16, 1982 the Writ Appeals are dismissed.
Civil Appeal No.
The State Government, particularly the Officers companycerned of the Forest Department, companytested the case mainly on the grounds that the entire surplus land in the hands of the writ petitioners had vested in the State Government along with the forest growth on a portion of the same.
an d 3.
Similarly, in respect of the third category of petitioners, the observation was that neither numberice under Form No.
The lands including the trees and other forest produce were the property of the State Government and the writ petitioners had numberright to cut and remove the trees on any portion of the surplus land which had vested in the State Government.
Both these Writ Petitions were filed by D. Ramakrishna Reddy and Others assailing the taking over possession of surplus lands from them under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Ceiling and Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 Act I of 1973 .
676 and 790 of 1982 which were filed by the writ petitioners against the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.
9617 18/95 directed against the Judgment of the High Court dated 10.7.1987 in Writ Appeal Nos.
Whether the forest produce standing on the land surrendered also vests in the State along with the land?
Therefore, the writ petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the authorities companycerned to issue necessary transit permit.
3012 of 1987.
9617 18/95 filed by D. Ramakrishna Reddy and four others are directed against the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.
The specific companytroversy raised in the cases related to the right of the petitioners to cut and remove trees from the forest area which was a part of the surplus land.
When does the land surrendered by the landholder vest in the State?
In the other cases, Civil Appeal Nos.
The authorities sat over the matter and did number issue the requisite transit permit.
The appellants herein who were included in the first category surrendered the surplus land in their possession on 1.3.1979.
Being aggrieved by the judgement of the Learned Single Judge, the Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad and the Divisional Forest Officer, Kama Reddy Division filed Writ Appeal No 731 of 1982 which was disposed of by the Judgment rendered on 27.7.1987, the operative portion of which reads as follows The Forest produce, we affirm, did number vest in the Government on the facts of the case as held in the order under Appeal.
The learned Single Judge divided the writ petitioners into three categories in the first category were included petitioners D. Narasimha Reddy and D. Venkata Reddy, the second category related to D. Ramakrishna Reddy and the third category related to petitioners G. Laxma Reddy and G. Bhoopal Reddy.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief on the ground that they had been approaching for the last several years for permits to cut and remove the forest produce on the said land, but were prevented from doing so on account of in action on the part of or wrong orders passed by the officers of the Forest Department?
790 and 676 of 1982.
On the basis of the above findings, the learned Single Judge held that in the case of categories 1 and 2, i.e. the writ petitioners 1, 2 5, the surplus land had vested in the State in the year 1979 itself, the forest growth on the said land too vested in the State along with the land and numberseparate companypensation or amount is payable on account of such forest growth.
All the writ appeals were filed against the judgment dated 22.4.1982 passed by the Learned Single Judge disposing of Writ Petition Nos.
The learned Single Judge further ordered that if there are any fruit bearing trees on the land which was surrendered by petitioners 1, 2 5 vested in the State, the said petitioners shall be entitled to companypensation as per Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultrural Holdings Rules, 1974.
5793 of 1979 and 637 of 1982.
Clarifying the fact situation further, the learned Single Judge observed that the total area of 160 acres 88 cents companyprising of 53 acres 50 cents of first petitioner, 53 acres 50 cents of second petitioner and 53 acres 80 cents of fifth petitioner which had been surrendered had vested in the State, transit permits for the forest produce in the remaining area was ordered to be issued according to the rules within one month of the date of receipt of the order.
355 356 of 1982 dated 16.4.1982.
In this regard, the learned Single Judge placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.
Specifying the area of the said land, the learned Judge observed the extent of land to be 46 acres 95 cents in Survey No.
731 of 1982, whereas Civil Appeal Nos.
The case of the petitioners, as appears from the discussions in the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, was that the forest land, though a part of the surplus land in their hands had number vested in the State Government,and therefore, they were entitled to cut and remove the trees standing on the said land before handing over possession of the land to the State Government.
836 of Hussain Nagar village.
IX was served on the petitioner on 12.11.1979.
The writ petitioners also pleaded that long before the land was declared surplus with them, they had moved the companypetent authority of the Forest department for grant of transit permits to them for cutting and removing the standing trees.
3012 of 1987 filed by the Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad Division and the Divisional Forest Officer, Kama Reddy, is directed against the Judgment of the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No.
The learned Single Judge, companysidering the case of the parties, formulated the following questions for determination 1.
Dealing with the case of writ petitioners 3 4 who were included in the third category, the learned Single Judge took the view that the lands proposed to be surrendered by them have number yet vested in the State in such a situation, there can be numbervalid objection by the authorities of the Forest department for issuing transit permits.
The learned Single Judge directed the forest authorities to issue transit permits in favour of the writ petitioners 3 4 G. Bhoopal Reddy and G. Laxma Reddy since deceased represented by Bhoopal Reddy in respect of the forest growth on the land, which they had offered to surrender as surplus land to the State Government.
Therefore, they were heard together and they are being disposed of by this Judgment.
P. MOHAPATRA, J. LITTTTTTJ These three appeals filed on the basis of the certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh involve companymon questions of facts and law.
