M. Anjaneyulu Vs. Conservator of Forest and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- a.p. record of rights in land and pattadar pass books act, 1971. section 5(3) & a.p. record of rights in land and pattadar passbooks rules, 1989, rules 5 & 19: : [g.s. singhvi, c.j., & g.v. seethapathy, c.v. nagarjuna reddy, jj] amendment of record of rights procedure held, proviso to section 5(1) and (3) represent statutory embodiment of the most important facet of rules of natural justice i.e., audi alterem partem. these provisions contemplate issue of notice to persons likely to be affected by action/decision of mandal revenue officer to carry out or not to carry out amendment in record of rights. similarly, a notice is required to be issued to any other person whom recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by amendment. a copy of amendment and notice is also required to be published in prescribed manner. the publication of notice in prescribed manner is in addition to notice, which is required to be given in writing to all persons whose names are entered in record of rights and who are interested in or affected by amendment and also to any other person whom recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by..........to have filed a suit, and the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to decide such civil disputes.5. the 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit. the facts, in relation to the grant of licence in favour of the 5th respondent, the transfer thereof, in favour of the petitioner, and those, that gave rise to the issuance of impugned memo, are stated. the 5th respondent also filed a counter-affidavit, alleging that the petitioner committed fraud on various authorities in getting the licence transferred, in his favour.6. heard sri v. venkata mayur, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned government pleader for forest, and sri maniklal yadav, learned counsel for the 5th respondent.7. the 5th respondent is the original licensee of the saw mill, established on part of land, owned by his mother. the licence was transferred in favour of the petitioner, vide proceedings dated 09-05-2007. a perusal of the same discloses that the 5th respondent is alleged to have made an application on 25-04-2007. this was preceded by the application, made by the petitioner on 02-02-2007. the 5lh respondent flatly denied that he made any application at all.8. whenever any licence, or permit is sought to be.....

Judgment:

ORDER

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. These writ petitions are filed by the same individual and in relation to the same subject-matter. The parties are identical in both the writ petitions. Hence, they are disposed of, through a common order.

2. The 5th respondent, by name, Bikshapati, was granted saw mill licence in the .year 2002, and accordingly a mill was installed upon the land in Sy. No. 257, Yenkathala Village of Mominpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The licence in his favour was renewed up to 31-12-2006. The petitioner filed an application before the Divisional Forest Officer, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent herein, with a request to transfer the licence in his name. He stated that the 5th respondent sold the saw mill, together with the land, in his favour. Acting on the same, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 09-05-2007, changing the ownership of the mill in favour of the petitioner, and renewing the licence up to 31-12-2007.

3. The 5th respondent filed representation be fore the 2nd respondent, stating that the licence was transferred in favour of the petitioner, contrary to the provisions of law, and without notice to him. The matter was got inquired into. Ultimately, through proceedings dated 11-08-2009, the 2nd respondent suspended the licence. W.P. No. 16351 of 2009 is filed challenging the action of the 2nd respondent in not renewing the licence, and W.P. No. 17965 of 2009 is filed challenging the memo dated 11-08-2009.

4. The petitioner submits that the licence was transferred in his name, after conducting inquiry, and the impugned memo was issued without any basis. He contends that in case the 5th respondent disputes the transfer, he ought to have filed a suit, and the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to decide such civil disputes.

5. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit. The facts, in relation to the grant of licence in favour of the 5th respondent, the transfer thereof, in favour of the petitioner, and those, that gave rise to the issuance of impugned memo, are stated. The 5th respondent also filed a counter-affidavit, alleging that the petitioner committed fraud on various authorities in getting the licence transferred, in his favour.

6. Heard Sri V. Venkata Mayur, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Forest, and Sri Maniklal Yadav, learned Counsel for the 5th respondent.

7. The 5th respondent is the original licensee of the saw mill, established on part of land, owned by his mother. The licence was transferred in favour of the petitioner, vide proceedings dated 09-05-2007. A perusal of the same discloses that the 5th respondent is alleged to have made an application on 25-04-2007. This was preceded by the application, made by the petitioner on 02-02-2007. The 5lh respondent flatly denied that he made any application at all.

8. Whenever any licence, or permit is sought to be transferred, the relevant enactments, or subordinate legislations provided for submission of joint applications. Even otherwise, prudence demands that, it is only when a joint application is made, by the existing holder of permit, and the proposed transferee, that necessary orders can be passed thereon. In a given case, a transfer can be effected on an application submitted by the existing holder of licence, or permit. However, the Authority must be convinced about the identity of the applicant, and the genuinity of the application.

9. The 5th respondent flatly denied the assertion of the petitioner, that the licence was transferred. The 2nd respondent called for the reports and remarks, after getting facts verified and re-verified. He suspended the licence, on finding that the transfer was not valid.

10. One fact, which becomes relevant, is that the petitioner filed O.S. No. 19 of 2007 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. In the plaint, it is mentioned that when the 5th respondent did not co-operate in the matter of execution of sale deed, the petitioner got issued a notice dated 04-12-2006 through his advocate. It means that there was a subsisting dispute between the parties, at least by 04-12-2006. It is just ununderstandable as to how an application was made by the petitioner for transfer, on 02-02-2007, as though there was absolute sale in his favour. Even now, the suit is pending. In this scenario, the petitioner cannot be permitted to operate the saw mill. The 2nd respondent has taken correct view of the matter, in suspending the licence. However, that suspension should not come in the way of renewing the licence, at the request of the 5th respondent, since he was at the receiving end of the illegality, that occurred in the form of transfer of licence.

11. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed. It is made clear that, in case the 5th respondent makes an application before the 2nd respondent, for renewal of licence, the same shall be considered on its own merits.

12. There shall be no order as to costs.