2002 (1) TMI 1336 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the letter dated 18-12-1984 by the Forest Settlement Officer.
2. Jurisdiction of the District Judge under Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967.
3. Whether the letter constitutes an "order" under Sections 10 and 11 of the Act.
4. Admissibility of the appeal filed by the Divisional Forest Officer.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the letter dated 18-12-1984 by the Forest Settlement Officer:
The Forest Settlement Officer, Nellore, after conducting an enquiry and reviewing the evidence, concluded that the claims of M/s. Inuganti Ramakrishna Ranga Rao and Inuganti Paparao were genuine. The letter dated 18-12-1984 recommended that the State Government seek prior orders from the Government of India for excluding the claimed patta lands from the proposed forest block. The letter stated, "the claimants have established their claim over the land beyond doubt with the result the claim of the petitioners is genuine and it has to be allowed."

2. Jurisdiction of the District Judge under Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967:
The Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru, appealed to the District Judge under Section 13 of the Act, arguing that the Forest Settlement Officer did not provide an opportunity to present his claims and that the findings were unsubstantiated. The District Judge dismissed the appeal, stating that the contentions lacked merit. The Divisional Forest Officer then challenged the dismissal in W.P.No. 12394 of 1989, arguing that the letter was not an "order" and hence, not appealable under Section 13 of the Act.

3. Whether the letter constitutes an "order" under Sections 10 and 11 of the Act:
The High Court examined whether the letter dated 18-12-1984 constituted an "order." The term "order" was interpreted to include every decision, award, or order made under Sections 10 and 11 of the Act. The Court noted that the Forest Settlement Officer had completed the enquiry, appreciated the evidence, and recorded a finding that the claims were genuine and should be allowed. The letter was seen as a determination of claims, fulfilling the adjudication process under Sections 10 and 11, except for the final order pending due to the need for prior permission from the Government of India.

4. Admissibility of the appeal filed by the Divisional Forest Officer:
The Court held that the appeal was rightly entertained by the District Judge as the letter dated 18-12-1984 was an "order" for the purposes of Section 13 of the Act. The Divisional Forest Officer's contention that the letter was not an "order" was rejected, as the letter contained a clear determination of the claims. The Divisional Forest Officer's appeal to the District Judge and subsequent writ petition were dismissed as the claims were adjudicated properly by the Forest Settlement Officer.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming that the letter dated 18-12-1984 by the Forest Settlement Officer was indeed an "order" under the Act, and thus, the District Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The Court emphasized that the Forest Settlement Officer had completed the necessary adjudication and only awaited the statutory formality of obtaining prior permission from the Government of India. The appeal by the Divisional Forest Officer was found to be without merit.