Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court ordered notices in a writ plea challenging the provisions of the Telangana Forests Act, 1967. Chirra Guruvaiah, belonging to the Chenchu community, based his writ plea on the ground that the Telangana Forests Act was repugnant to The Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and consequentially unconstitutional. The Chenchu community, according to the petitioner, was recognised as belonging to the "particularly vulnerable tribal groups” by the Union ministry of tribal affairs. He stated that the community established its presence in both the central and peripheral regions of Amrabad tiger reserve (ATR) in Nagarkurnool district since ancient times. The petitioner also stated they were dependent on the minor forest produce for their livelihood. It was the case of the petitioner that in order to claim individual and community forest right pattas, gram sabha meetings were convened and a resolution was passed accepting the claims put forward by the forest rights committees concerned.
The petitioner was aggrieved by the action of authorities in not verifying his claim and without following the procedure provided under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and Rules, 2008, which encapsulate conducting of the survey and process the claims thereof by measuring physical attributes such as house, huts and permanent improvements made to land including levelling, bunds and check dams. The forest range officer, Achampet, overlooked the rule book and issued a showcause eviction notice. Counsel for the petitioner Baglekar Akash Kumar argued that the impugned eviction notice issued by respondent authority was in contravention with the provisions of ROFR Act, 2006. He also argued that in repugnance to the rights guaranteed under the ROFR Act, 2006 (a Central Legislation), certain provisions the Telangana Forest Act, 1967 (a State legislation) mandates for eviction by terming as trespass, penalty and punishment to these Scheduled Tribes if they pastures cattle, collects or subjects any manufacturing process, any forest produce, clears or breaks up or ploughs any land for cultivation, removes any forest produce, in the area recognised as “reserved forest”. He also contended that the eviction notice issued under the provision of the Telangana Forests Act, 1967 was in contravention with the provisions of ROFR Act, 2006 which stated that no member of a forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribe shall be evicted or removed from forest land under his occupation till the recognition and verification procedure is complete. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, ordered notices and required the government to file its response.
HC refuses to issue writ against Indian Oil
Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court refused to issue a writ against Indian Oil Corporation (IOCL) in connection with a retail outlet at Malkapur of Ramagundam in Peddapalli district. Kundarapu Chayadevi, a housewife, moved the High Court contending that she was the owner of the land in question. She executed a lease agreement in favour of P. Praveen, proprietor of the service station at Malkapur, for a period of 15 years. She complained that even after the lease had expired in 2004, IOCL continued to supply stock to the service station. She contended that the proprietor of the retail outlet had neither paid rent nor vacated the premises. Dominic Fernandes pointed out that there was no contract between the petitioner and there contractor and therefore there cannot be a direction to the corporation at the behest of the petitioner. He successfully contended that the writ petition was not maintainable since there were disputed questions of facts. Dismissing the writ petition, Justice Nanda referred to rulings of the apex court and said, “This court opines that in the present case there are serious disputed questions of fact in the inter se disputes between the petitioner and the fifth respondent” and added that “this court opines that the said civil disputes cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.”
Land acquisition: GHMC asked not take action against not surrendering lands
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court directed GHMC not to take action against residents of Road No. 92, Jubilee Hills, who do not consent to give up their lands and buildings for a proposed road widening. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by S. Bal Reddy and 15 other residents of Road No. 92, Jubilee Hills. The petitioners challenged the notices issued by the GHMC under Section 146, which provides for acquisition of immovable property by agreement. It was the case of the petitioner the notice was directive and threating in nature. Senior counsel P. Sri Raghu Ram argued that the notice on one hand requested the petitioners to give up their buildings and land for proposed road widening and on the other hand said that if they failed to do so, departmental action wuold be taken by declaring them encroachers. He argued that the notices were issued under rules that were declared void by the High Court. The judge, after perusing the records, directed the GHMC to seek written instructions and posted the matter to August 5.
