RAMAKRISHNA REDDY AND ORS. versus THE ADDL. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 552 · Decided: 18-08-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY AND ORS. 
V. 
THE ADDL. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND ORS. 
AUGUST 18, 2000 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Land Laws: 
Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling and Agricultural Holdings) Act 
1973, s.11 n'w. Rules 8( 1) and (2) and 11-Right to cut and remove trees from 
the forest area forming part of the surplus land-High Court holding that 
despite surrender of surplus land by one category of appellants the forest land 
forming part of surplus land had not vested in State Government and that 
petitioners were entitled to compensation for the forest produce-High Court 
holding that in respect of a second category who had not parted with possession 
D 
vesting had not taken place and they were entitled to transit permits-Held, 
judgment of High Court was unsustainable; surplus land vested in State on 
communication of order passed to take over possession of land and this was not 
dependent on taking over of physical possession of land- -Furlher held, there 
being no provi~·ion for payment of any sum for trees ( olher than fruit bearing 
E 
trees) no claim.for compensation could arise. 
The surplus lands of the appellants were taken over by the State 
under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling and Agricultural Hold-
ings) Act, 1973. One category of appellants, who had surrendered their 
surplus land contended that the forest land which formed a part thereof 
F 
had not vested in the State and that they were entitled to receive compen-
sation for the forest produce. A second category who had not parted with 
possession contended that the surplus land had not vested in the State. 
G 
Single Judge of the High Court held that the forest growth on the 
surplus land also vested in the State along with the land and no separate 
compensation was payable for such growth. Accepting the contention of 
the second category that the surplus land had not yet vested in the State, 
the authorities were directed to issue transit permits in respect of the forest 
growth. In an appeal by the State, Division Bench held that the forest 
produce had not vested in the State and that the first category of appel-
H 
!ants were entitled to compensation. 
552 
D.R. REDDY v. ADDL. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER [D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.] 
553 
Dismissing the appeal of the surplus land holders and allowing the 
A 
appeal of the State, the court 
HELD : 1.1. The surplus land surrendered or deemed to have been 
surrendered vested in the State on communication of the order passed by 
the Revenue Divisional Officer to take over possession of such land. Vesting 
of the surplus land in the State was not dependent on taking over physical 
possession of the land which may be immediately after the vesting or 
sometimes subsequent thereto. The direction for the issuance of a transit 
permit in respect of the forest growth was not justified. [561-C; D; F] 
1.2. There being no provision in the Act or Rules for payment of any 
sum for the trees (other than fruit bearh1g trees) or any other forest 
produce on the vested land, no claim for compensation for the same could 
arise. The judgment of the High Court wa~ unsustainable. [561-G-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 9617-18 of 
B 
c 
1995. 
]) 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7.87 of the Andhra Pradesh High 
Court in W.A. Nos. 790 and 676 of 1982. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 3012 of 1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.7.87 of the Andhra Pradesh High 
Court in W.A. No. 731 of 1982. 
A. Subba Rao, Anil Kumar Tandale and P. Venkata Reddy for the appear-
ing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. These three appeals filed on the basis of the 
certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh involve 
common questions of facts and law. Therefore, they were heard together and 
they are being disposed of by this Judgment. Civil Appeal No. 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. 731 of 1982, 
wherea~ Civil Appeal Nos. 9617 -18/95 filed by D. Ramakrishna Reddy and 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
554 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
four others are directed against the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High 
Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 790 and 676 of 1982. All the writ appeals were filed 
against the judgment da
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.