9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Godavari Gazette on 6th July, 1953. Thereafter, the Forest Department caused survey of the land by a survey party of the Forest Department in March, 1959 after excluding the patta land and the land required for the communal needs. An area of 4100 acres out of 4900 acres was proposed for reservation under S. 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, for short 'the Act' and that proposal was approved by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 3, dated 3-1-1970. The notification was published in the A.P. Gazette on 29-1-1970 and also in West Godavari District on 7-8-1996. The Government of Andhra Pradesh while publishing the notification under S. 4 of the Act, appointed the Forest Settlement Officer, Nellore, to enquire into the claims of persons, if any. The Forest Settlement Officer published a notification inviting claims, if any, on 6-5-1977 from the interested persons. M/s. Inuganti Ramakrishna Ranga Rao and Inuganti Paparao filed their claim petitions in response to the notification before the Forest Settlement Officer, Nellore for exclusion of patta lands in Bogalu Forest block from forest area. The Forest Settlement Officer, after making necessary enquiry, wrote a letter No. C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer, Nellore. did not give any opportunity to the District Forest Officer to put forward his claim regarding the disputed lands and, therefore, the matter had to be remanded to the Forest Settlement Officer. Nellore for fresh enquiry. It was also contended on behalf of the Divisional Forest Officer, that the findings recorded by the Forest Settlement Officer in his letter are not substantiated. The learned District Judge rejected both the contentions advanced on behalf of the Divisional Forest Officer as devoid of any merit and consequently dismissed the appeal by his judgment and order dated 17-10-1988. The validity of the said order was assailed in W.P.No. 12394 of 1989 by the Divisional Forest Officer. Before the learned single Judge, the main argument on behalf of the Divisional Forest Officer. Eluru was that the letter of the Forest Settlement Officer, dated 18-12-1984 written to the Secretary, Forest and Agriculture Department is not an award or order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer within the meaning of that term and, therefore, the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under S. 13 of the Act against such letter and, therefore, the enter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udge against the order of the Settlement Officer rejecting the claim or admitting the claim of any claimant under Ss. 10 and 11 of the Act wholly or in part. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of S. 13 of the Act read : 13. Appeals from the orders of Forest Settlement Officer :- (1) Where a claim is rejected wholly or in part, the claimant may. within ninety days from the date of the order under sub-section (1) of S. 10 and within sixty days from the date of the order under sub-section (1) of S. 11, prefer an appeal to the District Court having jurisdiction in respect of such rejection only. (2) Where a claim is admitted under S. 10 or S. 11 in the first instance wholly or in part and where such claim does not relate to the acquisition of any land under the Land Acquisition Act. 1894, a like appeal, subject to the same period of limitation and subject to the same conditions, may be preferred to the District Court having jurisdiction on behalf of the Government by the Forest Officer or other person, generally or specially empowered by the Government in this behalf. 7. An appeal lies under sub-section (1) by the claimants whereas an appeal lies under sub-section (2) on behalf of the G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Judgment under rules (of) practice includes decree. Fed R Civ P 54 (a). Terms decision and Judgment are commonly used interchangeably. 8. In the premise of the meaning of the terms order, judgment and decision, noticed above, what has to be seen for the purpose of this case is whether in the letter of the Forest Settlement Officer, dated 18-12-1984, there is any determination of the claims put forth by M/s. Inuganti Ramakrishna Ranga Rao and Inuganti Papa Rao for exclusion of their patta lands from the proposed forest block. The observations of the Forest Settlement Officer, Nellore in his letter dated 18-12-1984, extracted above, clearly go to show that after necessary adjudication and appreciation of the evidence placed before him, he has recorded the finding that the claims of the claimants are well founded, established and that those claims are required to be admitted and allowed and the patta lands have to be excluded from the proposed forest block. It cannot be gainsaid that under Ss. 10 and 11 of the Act, the competent authority to determine the claims of the claimants is no other than the Forest Settlement Officer himself. For all practical purposes, the For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eprobate to suit his and his master's convenience and advantage. 9. There is also no merit in the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Forests that since the Forest Settlement Officer himself has stated in his letter dated 16-10-1989 written to the Registrar of this Court that he did not pass any final order by way of an award, treating his letter dated 18-12-1984 addressed to the Secretary, Forest and Agriculture Department, Andhra Pradesh, as an 'order' would not arise. This contention of the learned Government Pleader for Forests is required to be noticed only to be rejected. The Forest Settlement Officer has simply stated that he has not passed any final order. From this sentence, it cannot be said that he has not decided the claims of the claimants under Ss. 10 and 11 of the Act. As noticed above, the Forest Settlement Officer after conducting enquiry envisaged under the Act and on appreciation of the evidence on record, recorded the finding that the claims of the claimants are well founded and they deserve to be admitted and allowed and the patta lands of the claimants have to be excluded from the proposed forest block. Secondly, the personal opinio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
