One of Sakti’s major campaigns was against a plywood unit which had been allotted 60,000 hectares of reserved forest at a rate of Rs.70 per cubic metre. The open market rate for mango trees, which accounted for 80 per cent of feelings by the unit, was Rs.1,500.

SAKTI generated over 300 complaints about trees that had been cut or marked for felling in violation of rules. Felling Rules and Silvicultural practices stipulated as follows. Only matured or dying trees were to be felled. Jeelugu (Caryota urens) palm, trees yielding minor forest produce like tamarind or cane brakes, creepers were not to be touched. A gap of 20 meters from a stream. Cutting a tree was not allowed if it would disturb the canopy. Complaints citing instances of violation of the above rules saved many trees. At one stage the high cour which lifted a stay obtained by Sakti stipulated that fruit trrees should not be cut.

Around this time the government of Andhra Pradesh revised the rate charged for trees allotted to the unit. The revision was contested in courts and cutting of trees has been stopped pending disposal of this litigation.

27.0 Marking should be done for retention and felling separately. It should be completed by February so that felling can be commenced from April onwards. Following rules should be followed while marking.

1. Healthy and vigorously growing fruit bearing and minor forest produce yielding trees like Mango, Tamarind, Karaka, Jack, Usiri, Jeelugu, in that order, will be retained unformly spread over the area.
2. Marking should be done strip-wise.
3. Only timber yielding trees need be marked for felling. It is enough it only one serial number is maintained for the whole coupe.
4. The marked timber trees should be entrered in Form-I recording girth at brith., height of clean hole, anticipated firewood in cum etc.
5. Along peronnial stream banks growth upto 20 mts width on either side should be retained.
6. A belt of natural growth to a width of 20 mts should also be returned along important metalled and black topped roads.
7. Pure patches of cane brakes and Bamboo growth of and over 0.4. hectares in extent shall be retained.

From
P.Sivaramakrishna,
SAKTI,
Rampachodavaram,
E.G.District, Andhra Pradesh

To

Sri Madhavji Gadgil - Namaste,

I met you during the FEVORD-K (Mr.Heremaths others) seminar on common lands in the month of January, 1989. In fact I was next to you while you presented your paper.

I draw your attention to the two affidvits here with enclosed. The forests department is of firm opinion that mango tree attains overmatured stage by the time it attains 120 cm girth and worth felling. Our contention is that this 120 cm criteria may be resonable (1?) for other species but not for mango trees which attain the girth of 500-600 Cms. So this 120 cm criteria is not applicable to mango trees. They should not be cut. The over mature stage of mango cannot be 120 cm and should be higher i.e. around 300-400 cm.

The case which is posted for final hearing in High Court of A.P.and likely to reach with in two months. We are in need of literature regarding criteria for determination of mature and over mature trees of different species particularly mango trees in the similar ecosystems of eastern ghats.

Though the court has given interim direction that fruit bearing mango trees should not felled, the forest department rules out the intnces of trees bearing fruit above 120 cm as stray cases and allowing the felling.

In your recent foundation lecture in SPWD you mentioned in the first page it self extensively regarding the felling of fruit bearing trees of mangoes.

The reports such as Gadgil and Subhash Chandra (inprese) which may strenghten our case either published or unpublished are not with in our reach. Would you kindly send the relevant paras with your covering letter to enable us to submit the same in the High Court.

In case you are too busy to full fill this obligation I shall come over.

Yours Sincerely,

(P.SIVARAMAKRISHNA)

Date: 26th September, 1989

Prof.MADHAV GADGIL

Shri P.Sivaramakrishna
SAKTI,
Rampachodavaram,
E.G.District, Andhra Pradesh.

Dear Shri. Sivaramakrishna,

Your Ref: Letter dated 8.8.1989.

Please accept my sincere apologies. But we really do not have the type of information you need to make a legal case accessible to us. It would require a specific investigation to be carried out.

With kind regards,

Sincerely,

MADHAV GADGIL.

- much before the Supreme Court taken up the matter in T.N.Godavarman case.

Order in W.P.M.P. No.6021 of 1995,

Between:

SAKTI
Vs.
M/s. Godavari Plywoods, rep. by its Managing Director.

6th September, 1995

"By order dt. 15-3-95 passed in W.P.M.P.6021/95 this court granted interim direction to respondents 1 to 3 not to permit the felling of trees in the forests of Andhra Pradesh for non-forest purposes.

It appropriate to dispose of these M.Ps. with a direction to the 4th respondent to approach the competent authorities for the grant of necessary permission."

H.G.Belgaumkar, Indian Express, Bangalore, July 6, 1987-Chaos in catchment areas – Save the Western Ghats, Published by Central Organising Committee of Save the Western Ghats-March, Bandora, Ponda, Goa.

But they were put to even more hardship when forest department suddenly imposed a total ban on cutting cane from nearby forests. The reason given by forest department for imposing such a ban ws that, the caneworkers hve over exploited the cane from forests and that cane is getting extinct. In order to regenerate the cenegrowth the government imposed the ban.

For a forest official and to an outsider this ban may seem a rational step to protect caneworkers’s interest in the long run. However, the caneworkers’s view is entirely different. Caneworkers do accept that cane reserves have dwindled in recent times. But they attribute this overexploitation to government’s forest policy.

The forest department has allowed plywood factories to enter these forests. These plywood factories have logged the area for decades. While logging they select big and tall trees. These trees helped the regeneration of cane and to spread in length on the trunks of these trees. Once the trees were felled the cane had no support to spread. Gain the plywood companies constructed huge roads in thick forest areas. While constructing these roads the caneroots were uprooted. This process of uprooting can has put a stop to regeneration process. Plywood extraction over the years has decreased the availability of minor forest produce like honey and herbal nuts. Plywood companies have extracted water retaining trees from Agumbe forests. This has contributed towards drying up of streams, affecting agriculture.

The plywood companies are mainly responsible for the extraction of cane from the forests. These 160 traditional cane working families have been pushed to a state of destitutes by plywood factories.

The State Government has banned cane extraction but it has not banned plywood extraction.

- Pandurang Hegde, Financial Express, July 11, 1987, From Plywood to Poverty - Save the Western Ghats, Published by Central Organising Committee of Save the Western Ghats-March, Bandora, Ponda, Goa.

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
ABSTRACT

Supreme Court of India directions in writ petition (Civil) No.171 of 96 – Constitution of Expert Committee on Forest etc., - orders – Issued.

ENVIRONMENT FORESTS SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (FOR.I) DEPARTMENT

G.O.Ms.No.1 Dt.10.1.1997

1. From the Assistant Register, Supreme Court of India D.O.No.597/
97PIL/ ERIT, SCI, New Delhi, Dt.17-12-1996.

O R D E R :

In the reference cited, the Supreme Court of India has issued directions to the all State Governments that the felling of trees in all forests is to remain suspended except in accordance with the working plans of the State Governments as approved by the Central Government in addition to specific direction to certain State Governments.

1. The Supreme Court of India has also issued directions that each State Government should constitute with0in one month an expert committee to identify the areas which are "forest" etc.

2. The Government hereby constitute an expert committee with the following as members:

1. Sri Pratap Bahdur, IFS, (Retd.) Forest Officer,
2. M.D., APSRAC,
3. Director, NRSA, (National Remote Sensing Agency)
4. Secretary to CLR(Commissioner Land Revenue)
5. Commissioner, tribal welfare,
6. Sivaramakrishan, SAKTI,
7. K.Subba Rao, IFS, Chief Conservator of Forests, Member Convenor.

The Committee will submit a report of the following points within a period of one month from the note of this order:

i). Identify areas which are ‘Forests’ irrespective of whether they are so notified, recognised or classified under any law, and irrespective of the ownership of the land of such forests

ii). Identify areas which were earlier forest but stand degraded, denuded or cleared; and

iii). Identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the Government and those belonging to private persons.

The members of the Committee will be entitled to draw TA/DA as applicable to Grade 1 officer of the State Government.

(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADEH)

Dr.C.S.RANGACHARI,
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

To

The Prl.Chief Conservator of Forest, A.P.Hyd.
Copy to the individual: through Prl.Chief Conservtor of Forest.

MINUTES OF THE MEETING ON RE-OPENING OF
GODAVARI FLYWOODS LTD..
RAMPACHODAVARAM, HELD ON 21-05-99 AT 10-30 A.M.

The Project Officer, ITDA, Rampachodavaram convened the meeting on "Re-opening of Godvari Plywoods Ltd. Rampachodavaram" on 21-5-99 at 10-30 a.m. in ITDA, Rampachodavaram.

The following officers, persons attended the meeting.

1. Hon'ble M.L.A., Yellavaram Assembly Constituency,
2. The Managing Director, Godavari Plywoods Ltd., Hyderabad
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rampachodavaram
4. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rampachodavaram.
5. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Maredumilli.
6. Sri D.Samuel, Advisor & Convenor, {}Ex.Union Leaders.
7. Sri P.Baburao, President, {}Godavari Plywoods
8. Sri D.Sundara rao, Genl. Secretary, {}National Employees
9. Sri G. Seetaramulu, Treasurer {}Union, R. Chodavaram

The Managing Director, Godavari Plywoods Ltd., firstly informed that 1000 C.M.T. of wood is required every month for smooth functioning of the factory. Since, the wood is not availble in Govt. lands and as there are certain legal obstructions for procurement of wood in Agency Area, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Y.Ramavaram and Maredumilli are requested to take-up survey for identifying the soft and hard wood available in private lands urgently. The Managing Director, Godavari Plywoods Ltd., has also informed that he would send the Project Report very soon regarding offering of incentives etc., to the Private pattadars.

After receipt of the said Project report from the M.D. and after examining the same, It is decided to conduct of next meeting. Probably in the 3rd week of June with all pattadars. The Disr. Collector, East Godavari and the Dist. Forest Officer will also be invited for the meeting to be convened so.

Finally, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Y.Ramavaram and Maredumilli were once again requested to take up the survey by forming teams urgently for identifying the various trees available in private lands.

Sd/- B.Rajasekhar
PROJECT OFFICER
I.T.D.A.
RAMPACHODAVARM

Ref.No.22937/99-D2 Office of the Prl.Chief Conservator of Forests
Dt.24-5-1999. Andhra Pradesh, Aranya Bhavan, Hyderabad.

Sri S.D.Mukherji,I.F.S.,
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

Sub:- Timber supplies to Godavari Plywoods Limited as per G.O.Ms, No.66 dt.24.04.'96 - Inordinate delays that have crippled the chances of revival of GPL under BIFR package dt.05.01.'95.

Ref:- Lr.Dt.22.5.'99 of Chairman & Managing Director, M/s.GPL.

***

A copy of the representation cited of the Chairman & Managing Director, M/s. GPL is enclosed. M/s.GPL in their representation requested:-

1. for considering supply of timber from the patta lands in E.G.Dist.

2. for supply of teak from matured teak plantations of Rajahmundry, Visakhapatnam and Khammam Circles and silver oak from Visakhapatnam district.

3. for supply of timber from Kota and Pullngi Forest Blocks of Kakinada Division.

The above issues were discussed on 24.5.1999 by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forrests with the Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry and Sri N.Venkaiah, Chairman & Managing Director, M/s.Godavari Plywoods Limited, Rampachodavaram. As per the discussions held, the concerned Conservator of Forests are requested to furnish
information as follows:

1. Availability of timber in patta lands in East Godavari District:

The Conservator of Forests Rajahmundry is requested to examine the legality of the patta lands furnished by M/s.Godavari Plywoods Limited. If the patta is legal, it is to be examined whether the Pattadar has right over the tree growth and if so, whether the trees can be disposed off or allotted to the Plywood Industry. The extent of such availability of Plywood timber with details of pattas and pattedars be furnished Mandal-wise. The operation of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Act and Forest Conservation Act in such areas may also be examined.

2. Availability of teak timber in Rajahmundry, Visakhapatnam & Khammam circles:

M/s Godavari Plywoods Limited is requesting for allotment of 3,000 cmt per annum of teak timber from the teak plantations of the these Circles. The Conservators of Forest may work-out details of timber available per annum from the matured plantations from the year 1999-2000 on wards and submit a working scheme.

Regarding silver oak timber the Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry and the Conservator of Forests, Visakhapatnam are requested to furnish year-wise details of the availability of such plantations and timber that can be obtained from such plantations from 1999-2000 onwards with a working scheme.

3. Allotment of timber from Kota & Pullangi forest blocks:

As the Chief Conservator of Forests (Central) after causing inspections has not agreed for extraction of plywood material from these blocks in the interest of conservation/ preservation of forests, no further action can be taken.

The Conservator of Forests, Visakhapatnam, Rajahmundry and Khammam Circles are requested to furnish the above information of their areas by 15.6.1999. The Chairman & Managing Director, M/s Godavari Plywoods Limited has been requested to furnish copies of the specifications of plywood material to the concerned Conservator of Forests directly for facilitating in the estimation of the availability of the plywood material.

Sd/- S.D.MUKHERJI

PRL.CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

To

The Conservators of Forests of Rajahmundry, Visakhapatnam & Khammam Circles.

Copy to the Chairman & Managing Director, M/s. Godavari Plywoods Limited, "NALAMOTHU HOUSE" 6.3.1186/1, Greenlands Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500 016. He is requested to furnish the copy of the recent specifications of Plywood material to the concerned Conservators of Forests. He is requested to approach Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.Forest Development Corporation regarding allotment of Silver Oak sale from A.P.Forest Development Corporation areas.

From                                                                      To
Sri S D.Mukherji.l.F.S.,                                         The Dist.Collector
Prl.Chief Conservator of Forests,                         East Godavari District, 
Aranya Bhavan, A.P.Hyderabad.                          Kakinada
.

Ref.No.22937/99-D2 Date: 7-6-1999

Sir,

Sub:- Forest Department - Supply of timber to M/s.Godavari Plywood Ltd.,- Reg.

Ref:- l) Meeting held in the chambers of Minister for Forests & Environment on 29-5-1999.

2) Govt.D.O.Lr No.2808/For.III/99-4, Dated:3-6-1999.

On the representation of Chairman & Managing Director of M/s.Godavari Plywood Limited, a meeting was held in the Chambers of Minister for Forests & Environment on 29.5."99 on the supply of timber to M/s.Godavari Plywood Limited. As the Department is not in position to supply from East Godavari District forest in view of Forest Conservation Act the Chairman & Managing Director, M/s Godavari Plywood Limited informed the Hon'bie Minister for Forests & Environment that some Pattedars in East Godavari district are willing to supply timber from their patta lands to his industry and therefore, the Chairman & Managing Director, M/s.Godavari Plywood Limited requested action to be taken accordingly. During the discussion, the Chairman & Managing Director, M/s.Godavari Plywood Limited was informed that the rights of the Pattedars over the timber in their lands have to be got verified and the Dist.Collector, East Godavari district is the concerned authority to verify such rights and also issue of necessary felling permission.

The Chairman & Managing Director, M/s.Godavari Plywood Limited was directed to furnish the list of such Pattedars to the Dist.Collector, East Godavari district who will verify the rights of Pattedars on the timber in their patta lands and send the details to the Forest Department for further action within (30) days. A copy of the Minutes of the Discussion is enclosed. As soon as the Chairman & Managing Director, M/s.Godavari Plywood Limited approaches the Dist Collector, it is requested to take-up the verification as requested in the agenda item-1 of the minutes of discussion and inform the details to the Divisional Forest Officer, Kakinada Division and to the Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry Circle for necessary action marking copy to the Prl Chief Conservator of Forests.

Yours faithfully,
Sd/- M.Sultan Mohiuddin, For Prl.Chief Conservator of Forests.

Encls: As above
Copy submitted to the Prl..Secretary to Government (EFS&T),Govt. of AP. Hyderabad with a request to direct the Dist.Collector E.G.Dist. to Cause necessary verification as per the list of Pattadar to be Furnished by the Managing Director & Chairman M/s Godavary Plywood Industries Ltd, as decided in the discussions on 29-5-99 With Honourable Mini. for Forests.

Copy to the Conservator of Forests, Raiahmundry Circle - for necessary action., Copy to the Divisional Forest Officer, Kakinada for necessary action. Copy to Sri N. Venkaiah, Chairman & Managing Director, M/s.Godavari Plywood Limited, "Nalamothu House" 6-3-1186/1, Greenlands Road, Begumpet, Hydcrnbad 500 016 - with a request to approach the Dist.Collector, East Godnvari district with the Iist of the Pattedars as already decided in the meeting held in the chambers of Minister for Forests & Environment on 29.5. '99.

For Prl.Chief Conservator

From John Ulahannan in Chintalapudi

The virgin forests of the Bison Hills of East Godavari district are now under a shave-off threat as the unscrupulous, scheming timber contractors spread their tentacles deeper and deeper into the rich groves. They grab from the treasure box of nature in broad daylight and get away with the loot as the helpless, and in many cases conniving, authorities watch indifferently.

This reporter, recently on a tour of the agency areas of East Godavari district, witnessed with the help of some local and deforestation activists the virtual rape of a virgin piece of natural forest, rare in Andhra Pradesh, at the hands of a timber contractor based at Kakinada. His men are busy cutting down trees and what today is a stretch of lovely forest cover will soon turn into barren land. The place in question is about 25 km from the road head at Maredumilli off Rampachodavaram, Sileru and Narsipatnam to Chintur constitute Andhra Pradesh’s only stretch of natural forests, quite rich, through not as rich as the Silent Valley in Kerala, in flora and fauna. The wild species of bison found in these forests has earned them the name Bison Hills.

The story begins with the granting of pattas to 11 non-tribal individuals from Kakinada for 11 separate but adjacent plots of non-reserve forest land here bearing survey numbers from 51/1 to 51/11 some years back. The lands stretch across the Chitapkonda and Kakibandalu hills overlooking the Chintalapudi tribal settlement of Y Ramavaram mandal. The grant of these pattas itself is questionable because non-tribals are not entitled to hold landed property is scheduled areas according to the Land Translation Regulation Act of 1974. But the parties concerned, it is learnt, took advantage of the provisions of another Act of the state government which in a way nullify the LTRA restrictions on land holdings in scheduled areas by non-tribals. The Act legalises the issuance of "Ryotuvaripattas" to lands to non-tribals if they had been cultivating such lands in scheduled non-reserved forests for eight years. But the lands in question were obviously never under cultivation. These lands are virgin forests unexplored and rich in natural beauty and forest wealth. Acting on a complaint about the pattas, the Director of Settlements, Revenue Department, ordered the cancellation of the same but the higher authority, the settlement commissioner, reversed the order on the technical ground of time delay, it is learnt.

As the pattas were cleared the 11 non-tribals conferred the power of attorney with regard to the use of these forest lands on a timber contractor and dealer from Kakinada. The power of attorney entitles the person concerned to solely and totally exploit the resources available in the land in question like cutting and selling trees, etc. The contractor brought in his men and set up work comps in the deep forest and started felling trees on a large scale. But the tribal population of the surrounding areas, especially those of Chintalapudi settlement who would be the most affected in the case of the said forest being wiped off, raised pociferous objections with the help of certain social activists. The sarpanch of the Chintalapudi village told me that the contractor in a bid to settle the issue before it spilled out from the confines of the forest offered to pay a community compensation of Rs. 6,400 on each plot of land for all the 11 survey numbers to the tribals. But the tribals refused the compensations as they considered this would be the gravest sin they could commit selling off the sustenance of their existence, mother forest.

However, as I had pointed out earlier, the contractor is going ahead with his operations. Deep into the valleys and the cliffs of this unwalked forest his men have now laid truck roads. Hundreds of workers are engaged in cutting trees. And many others in pulling them down truck roads using buffaloes. At Many places there are stacks waiting to be lifted by trucks. The tribals and the social activists who campaign against deforestation in these areas have almost lost the bottle against this ecological outrage under the nose of the Forest Department, as they are left unarmed against the might of the contractor. Sources who have sought anonymity allege that right them the stage of the issual of pattas the contracter has been invoiced in the matter. They argue that otherwise there was no need for all the 11 patta-holders to confer the power of attorney on the same contractor.

Sources say that similar shaving of virgin non-reserved forests is taking place at four other places in the agency areas of east Godavari district.

The Chintalapudi scandal raises certain questions. How could the settlement department clear pattas on forest lands without proper enquiries, on the pretext that the lands in question were agricultural lands whereas the truth is otherwise. Why did the Forest Department, which claims to be the guardian of all forests not object to the issuance of the pattas as well as the subsequent felling of trees by the contractor. Why should the contractor affer to compensate the tribals if the whole affair was legal. The government owes the answers to these questions to the people of a state which experiences he alarming consequences of ecological deterioration more and more as each day passes.

- NEWS TIME Saturday May 30 198

- M.V.P.C.Sastry, IAS, Dist.collector, (East Godavari) Dated: 3.6.1987

"There are large number of cases where pattas were issued illegally by the settlement officer to Non-tribals, In many of these settlement patta lands, there is dense forest growth."

"Unfortunately, due to the inadequate legal provisions felling permissions were already granted in 26 cases on the directions of High Court. 17 cases are pending in the Collector’s office for grant of permission. In five cases the permissions were rejected. There are 9 cases pending in the High Court. In some of the cases pending before the High Court, the felling permits are claimed in virgin forests."

"The scheduled areas in the District are the catchments area for Yeleru River and a large number of other minor streams and springs which provide irrigation and drinking water in the tribal areas and in the upland. These springs and streams are fast drying up and there is perceptible change in the ecological balance in the Agency area."

-Indian Express, August 13, 1990?

Express News Service
Hyderabad, Aug. 12: An order issued by the State Government last month will open up a pandor’s box and help raze thick forests to the extent of 3,500 acres in East Godavari district.

In a strange reversal of an earlier decision, the State Government issued orders allowing a power of attorney holder to fell trees in 209 hectares (over 500 acres) of thick forest.

The action of the government gives credence to suspicion of large amounts changing hands as the move benefits a few private forest landawners and timber merchants. The Opposition too has charged the Government with shady deals to benefit the holder of the power of attorney.

The governmdent order (GO) Ms. 185 of 9.7.90 which goes against G.O. Ms. 210 of 20.7.88 will spelt doom for forests in about 1400 hectares in Chintalapudi, Perikavalasa, Jangalthota, Pydiputta and Kota villages of Y. Ramavaram mandal of East Godavari.

The forests in these areas are believed to be about 75 years old and the area is full of slopes and streams.

The irony of the latest government order is that it grants permission to the power of attorney, V. Sankar Reddy, which was denied to him by the High Court.

Sankar Reddy had filed a writ in the High Court chanlleging the government order No. 210 of July, 1988, which nullified execution of a power of attorney. The order also banned felling of trees whose vale exceeded Rs. 5,000. The court struck down his writ while upholding the Government order.

The power of attorney then approached the Supreme Court and while the matter was pending with the highest court in the land, the government silently issued orders granting permission to Sankar Reddy to fell trees in survey numbers 51/1 to 51/11 of Chintalapudi village of East Godavari district. Sankar Reddy reportedly assured the Government that he would withdraw his special leave petition pending with the Supreme Court.

The G.O. No. 210 was issued to protect tribais and forests in the agency areas from exploitation by non-tribals and timber merchants. It was based on a similar amendment made by the Madhya Pradesh Government in 1984 to the "protection of Aboriginal Tribes (interest in trees) Act".

The 1988 order amends chapter III-A of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act and states that any power of attorney or authority letters, or bond, or similar deed executed or a contract, licence or any other transaction entered into before or after January 1, 1970, by the land owners in favour of or with a person to act on his behalf or to do any job shall be null and void Furtheremore, no permission shall be granted in a year to cut trees of the value exceeding Rs. 5,000 unless the district collector is satisfied that the value of the trees proposed to be cut exceeding the said limit is necessary to meet the urgent expenses of such owner.

The order helped curb the unscrupulous felling of trees in private forests. The private forests in the areas are held by non-tribals who have managed to obtain settlement pattas. There are stated to be over 300 such illegal settlement pattas in the name of non-tribals.

Sankar Reddy and 18 others, whom he represented as power of attorney, went to the High Court challenging the 1988 order. The writ was struck down.

While the issue was pending in the Supreme Court, Sankar Reddy made a representation to the State Government on March 6, 1990, by which time the Congress-I was in power in the State.

He stated that the Chintalapudi puttadars had been granted ryotwari pattas by the settlement officer in 1975. The pattadars were non-tribals and while some of them had been permitted to fell trees, others were denied permission on the ground that the G.O. of 1988 did not provide for it.

The order of July 9 directs the principal chief conservator of forests to instruct the divisional forests officer of Kakinada not to interfere in the matter of felling of trees and issue of transit permits to the pattadars referred to."

Many of the non-tribal pattadars in the area have obtained pattas illegally. Most of the cases were detected in 1978 in a joint survey by revenue and forest department officials. Many more cases came to the fore during the "Telugu Girijana Magani Samardhana" programme launched in 1987 by the then chief minister N.T. Rama Rao. The programme envisaged granting pattas to the landless Girijans.

So acute did the problem of exploitation of tribals become that the collector of East Godavari, Mr. M.V.P.C. Sastry, wrote to the government in 1987 seeking an amendment to the Forests Act to safeguard the interest of tribals. It was after a detailed study of the problem highlighted by him that the 1988 amendment was made.

The government had now by the fresh orders given scope to the pattadars to self trees on a large scale which will denude rich forests in the district.

Meanwhile, a voluntary organisation called "Sakti", which is working with tribals in Rampachodavaram in East Godavari district, had challenged the last G.O. in the High Court, terming it a "Colourable exercise of power" to benefit an individual.

MEMO.NO.20940/For.III/90-I
Dated: 20-08-1990

Sub:- A.P.Forest Act. 1967 - Amendment issued to Sec.28 B and 28 of Chapter III-A of the Act. - Amendment to G.O.Ms.No.210, Energy Forests Environment Science & Technology Department, Dt.20-07-1988 - orders - stayed.

1. G.O.Ms.No.210, E.F.E.S., & T Dept.
Dt.20.7.1988.
2. G.O.Ms.No.88, E.F.E.S., & T Dept.
Dt.10.3.1989
3. G.O.Ms.No.105, E.F.E.S. & T
Dept.Dt.9.6.1990.
4. Govt.Memo.No.20940/For.III/90-1
dt.20.8.1990
5. Govt.Telegram No.20940/For.III/90,
dt.20.8.1990.

***

The Stay Orders issued in the Government Memo 4th cited are hereby vacated.

- Express News Service

Hyderabad – The Janardhana Reddy Government has issued orders vacating th stay on felling of trees in the thick forests of Chintalapudi village in Y.Ramavaram mandal of East Godavari District.

The cryptic single-sentence order was issued a few days ago after obtaining the opinion of the Advocate-General. It is learnt.

The order will enable one V.Shankar Reddy, a forest contrctor, to cut trees from the thick forests in an area of 209 hectares. Permissioin to him to do so was granted by the Channa Reddy Government in 1990. But Dr.Reddy stayed implementation of the Government Order (G.O.No.185) which superceded an order issued by the NTR regime prohibiting felling of trees in large numbers and nullifying execution of a power of attorney.

Mr.Shankar Reddy had secured power of attorney from the pattadars was allegedly indulging in illegal tree-felling.

- Indian Express, 31-12-1991

-Express News Service

Hyderabad – Why is the Congress-I Government in Andhra Pradesh so keen on helping a timber "smuggler" who cut down thick forests in Chintalapudi of East Godavari district?

The Government is reportedly in favour of a proposal to withdraw the stay on a Government order permiting feling of trees in the dense foress in Y.Ramavaram mandal. The Channa Reddy Government had in August last year stayed the Government order (No.185) which empowered a power of attorney holder to chop down trees in an extent of 209 hectares.

The issue having come up for review now, the Janardhana Reddy administration is stated to be in favour of withdrawing the stay and allowing a privte contrctor V.Shankar Reddy to fell trees.

The Government order (G.O.) No.185 of 9.7.90 itself was controversial in that it went against an earlier order of 1988 which restricted felling of trees in agency areas to a maximum of Rs.5,000 worth. The order also nullified holding of a power of attorney in the scheduled areas.

CHANNA REVERSED: But the Channa Reddy ministry reversed the earlier orders through G.O.No.185. Ironically, the Chief Minister, Mr.N.Janardhana Reddy was the agriculture and forests ministe at that time and is thus well versed with the issue.

Dense forests cover about 1,400 hectares (3,500 acres) in five villages – Kota, Chintalapudi, Pydiputta, Perikavalasa and Jangalthota – of Y.Ramavram mandal. To protect forests and the Girijans living there, the Government headed by Mr.N.T.Rama Rao had in 1988 issued orders nullifying execution of a power of attorney in the scheduled areas and limiting the felling of trees to only Rs.5,000 worth.

Shankar Reddy had challenged the G.O. in the Andhra Pradesh High Court and even as the issue was pending there, the Government (Channa Reddy) issued the G.O. No.185 allowing him to cut down the trees.

Bowing to public pressure. Dr.Channa Reddy stayed the orders issued during his own regime. A move is now a foot to vacate the stay and allow Shankar Reddy to fell trees.

LITIGANT: The timber contractor has been a regular litigatnt with the Government and has on many occasions cut down vast stretches of forest, taking shelter under court orders. Following suggestions from the Collector of East Godavari district in 1987. The NTR Government through the G.O.210 of 20.7.88 amended th A.P.Forest Act to th effect that "any powr of attorney or letter of authority, or bond, or similar deed executed, or a contract or licence or any other transaction entered into after Jan.1, 1970, by the land owners in favour of or with a person to act on his behalf, or to do any job shall be null and void".

The amendment was on the lines of a similar one by the Madhya Pradesh Government to the M.P.Protection of Aborginal Tribes (interest in trees) Act.

In the tribal areas of East Godavari, several non-tribals have acquired forest lands by entering into one-sided agreements or fraudulently obtaining settlement pattas. There are an approximate 300 such illegl pattas.

As the A.P.Forest Act prohibits the alienation of forest produce without prior sanction of the district colector, many non-tribal forest contrctos obtained power of attorney from the tribals owners by paying paltry sums and applying for permission for felling of trees.

Shankar Reddy is stated to be holding power of attorney on behalf of 18 different owners. Having applied for permission to fell trees, he approached the A.P.High Court in 1985 when the Collector rejected his application. The court upheld the orders of the Collector that growth of trees in agnecy areas should be diveloped. The case has been under litigation since then.

- Indian Express, December 29, 1991

-Indian Express, Dated: 02-01-1992

Express News Service

Hyderabad – The AP High Court on Tuesday stayed the felling of trees by Mr.V.Shankar Reddy in Chintalapudi forest in Y.Ramavaram mandal in East Godavari district. The interim orders were passed by Justice P.L.N.Sharma while disposing of a miscellaneious interim petition filed by Dr.P.Sivaramakrishna on behalf "Sakthi", a voluntary organisation working for the tribals in the Godavari valley.

Mr.Shankar Reddy, who obtained a general power of attorney from pattedars, secured an exemptioin from the State Government which enabled him to fell trees in the forest.

When "Shakti" filed a writ petition challenging the exemption last year, the State Government informed the High Court that the exemption given to Mr.Shankar Reddy weas withdrawn. In December, the Government vacated the stay orders.

AP VERDICT FAVOURS ENVIRONMENTALISTS

-Saturday, april 25 1992, the times of india, new delhi
The Times of India News Service

- C Lokeswara Rao

HYDERABAD, April 24: Environment activists have won a significant decision in Andhra Pradesh High Court. A division bench comprising Mr. Justice Mohammed Sardar Ali Khan and Mr. Justice D. Reddeppa Reddy has quashed state government order of 1990, which circumvented an earlier decision to protect forests.

The quashed government order had been hanging over the Chintalapudi forest in East Godavari district, one of the few dense forests in the state. The 200-hectare Chintalapudi forest is a key segment of the thick forests covering 1400 hectares.

The quashed order directed forest officials not to interfere in the felling of trees and issue of transit permits. The order was issued by the Channa Reddy government but the chief minister stayed it following protests by environmentalists and politicians.

The order of 1990 was issued in response to a plea by a timber contractor Mr. V. Shankara Reddy, who sought exemption from an earlier order issued by the NTR government in 1988. The order was meant to protect private forests in scheduled areas and prevent tribals from being exploited by non-tribal timber merchants.

Mr. Sankara Reddy is a non-tribal timber merchant with a power of attorney and has fought many legal battles to retain his right over the forests.

He challenged the order of 1988 which nullified his power

of attorney. And when the high court upheld the order, he went to the Supreme Court.

After the government changed in 1989, he approached them with a fresh plea for exemption and offered to withdraw his case in the Supreme Court. Dr. Channa Reddy’s government issued the order but stayed its implementation following protests.

Mr. Sankara Reddy renewed his efforts after Mr. N. Janardhan Reddy became the chief minister. The high court first imposed a stay and now a bench has quashed the order.

In upholding the petition filed by Sakti, a voluntary organisation working for tribals, the court made some important observations. Rejecting objections about the locus standi of the petitioner. The Bench observed that the Constitution attached vital importance to the maintenance of proper environmental and ecological conditions.

Also, a full bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had noted in an earlier case that what had to be seen for the purpose of locus standi was whether there a substantive breach of law or the Constitution as changed and not the antecedents of the person who conveyed the information to court.

The court quoted extensively from a Supreme Court judgement to make the point that the government could not empower itself to proceed contrary to the law. An illegality could not be cured because it was undertaken by the government.

The court noted that in the present case Mr. Sankara Reddy was only a power of attorney who was trying to cut trees for his own benefit. The object of the legislation was to save private forests in scheduled areas from denudation.

- by K.Lakshmi Narasimha, Advocate, High Court of A.P.,
ALTR Publications - 1996

Page - 83:

"Chapter III-A, Section 28-B, Sub-sections (2) and (3) and G.O.Ms.No.185, Energy, Forests, Environment, Science and Technology (Forests-Ill) Department, dt9-7-1990 -After the amendment of Section 28-B(2) by G.O.Ms.No.210, EFEST (Forest-Ill) Department, dt. 20-7-1988, no person claiming under the owner Including General Power of Attorney holder has got any power to cut the trees In the forest and GPA holder cannot represent the pattadars (owners) - Exemption under Section 28-B(3) cannot be granted in favour of any person - Exemption thereunder could be only with regard to any forest or class of forests - Under amended Section 28-B permission to cut the trees to any owner can be granted only by District Collector and not the State Government-Permission granted by State Government in G.O.Ms.No. 185, dt. 9-7-1990 is violative of provisions of Section 28-B of the Act.

Held: By virtue of the amendment to Section 28-B(2) no person claiming under the owner, either by virtue of a contract or any other transaction entered Into on or before the first day of January, 1970 has got any power to cut the trees or to do any act likely to denude the forest or diminish its utility as a forest. In fact, any other person apart from the owner including General Power of Attorney holder, has been completely eliminated from the scene under the amendment to Section 28-B(2).

Under sub-section (3) of Section 28-B the Government may exempt any forest or class of forests or class of trees grown therein from all or any of the provisions of Section 28-B. No exemption could be granted in favour of any person as such. It IB only with regard to any forest or class of forests exemption could be granted.

Under the amended Section 28-B It Is the District Collector who has been authorised to grant permission to cut the trees to any owner and not the State Government. Therefore, the permission accorded by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No. 185, dated 9-7-1990 is rendered nugatory in view of the provisions of Section 28-B of the Forests Act V.ShankarReddy and another vs. State of A.P. and others; 1992(2) A.L.T.514 (D.B.).

Memo No.769/Assign.III9i) 90 Dated: 25-01-1990

Sub:- Tribal Welfare - Mining Lease - Preference to Scheduled Tribes in respect of Mining
leases - Reg.
Ref:- Minutes of the meeting held in the Chambers of Chief Secretary to Government on
27-10-89 at 3.30 p.m.

A copy of the minutes of the meeting held o the Chambers of Chief Secretary to Government on 27-10-89 is sent herewith to the Commissioner of Land Revenue for taking necessary action.

K.VENKATA SIVAIAH
ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

5. So for as the mining leases licences already granted to the non-tribals in the Scheduled areas are concerned, all such lease licences should be determined with reference to the provisions of amendment requiation (i) of 1970 and the G.O.Ms.No.971 Revenue (B) Department, dated 7-10-1969 the formar of which prohibits the transfer of any immovable property held by a tribal or non-tribal in the Scheduled areas to any Government land in the Scheduled areas in favour of Non-tribals for the purpose of mining operations also tentamounts to the assignment of Governemnt land so far as the spirit of G.O.Ms.No.971, Revenue (B) Deprtment, Dated 7-10-1969 is concerned. Therefor, all such leases/licenses granted in the scheduled areas to the non-tribals after 7-10-1969 are to be revoked as they are prime facio contrary to the existing laws.

(Action: Social Welfare Dept.. Industries Dept., and Rev.)

- Indian Express – November 11, 1990

Express News Service

Kakinada, Nov.10: In spite of instructions from the Chief Secretary the Department of Mines is reluctant to cancel the mining leases issued to non-tribals in scheduled areas.

Several activists and officials working with the tribals had brought it to the notice of the Chief Secretary and he promptly took up the matter with the secretaries of departments on October 25, 1989 and issued instructions to the departments to cancel the licences given to non-tribals in scheduled areas.

- Indian Express dated 17-03-1993

EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE

HYDERABAD – Has the Andhra Pradesh Government violated the stipulations laid down by the Centre in granting mining lease in a notified reserve forest area to a company owned by a former Congress-I legislator in East Godavari district?

This question put the State Government in a piquant situation, with Telugu Desam Party members grilling the Mines Minister Mr Ch.Venkata Harirama Jogaiah, during question hour in the Assembly on Tuesday.

In reply to a query by S.Venkateswar Rao and others of the TDP Mr.Jogaiah said that the mining lease was granted to M/s Adivasi Minerals owned by former Congress-I legislator Ratnabai in Tadepalli village in East Godavari district.

Joint inspection ordered: A joint inspection by the revenue and forest officials had been ordered to verify whether the mining area was situated in the notified forest. The minister, however, maintained that the lease was given during Feb. 1992 based on the district collector’s report that the land was classified as unassessed wasteland.

Dissatisfied with the minister’s answer, the TDP members shot question after question grilling Mr.Jogaiah for more than 40 minutes. The TDP members asserted that Tadepalli village was notified as a reserve forest by the Centre and any mining operation in the forest area was banned.

Supported by the CPI and BJP members, Telugu Desam deputy leader K.Vidyadhar Rao demanded that the government institute a probe by a House committee. But, the mines minister firmly rejected the demand stating that he would initiate action based on the report of the joint inspection team.

CM to minister’s rescue: As the opposition continued to grill Mr.Jogaiah, Chief Minister K.Vijayabhaskar Reddy intervened to point out that the minister had already assured the House that the mining operations would be stopped immediately pending the report of the joint inspection team. Stern action would be initiatd against the officials who recommended granting of the lease.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE : ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
26-03-1993
PRESENT: : THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASHAN REDDY
W.P.M.P. NO.4786/1993

Between:

SAKTI a voluntary social organisation

Vs.

1. State of A.P.rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt. Energy, Forests, Environments, Science and Technology (Forests-III) Dept. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad
2. The Director of Mines and Geology, Govt. of A.P., SRK.Rao Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabada
3. The District Collector, E.G.District, Kakinada
4. The District Forest Officer, Kakinada
5. Union of India, rep.by its Secretary Govt., Ministry of Environment and Forests, Paryavaran Bhavan, C.C.O.Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
6. M/s.Hyderabad Abrasives Ltd.A-10, Express Apartments, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad
7. Proprietor, Adivasi Integrated Corpn, Kantipudivari Street, Krishnapuram , Rajahmundry.
8. Sangam Minerals, Kantipudivari street, Krishnapuram, Rajahmundry, rep.by its Proprieto Sri E.Satya Rao
9. Girijan Minerals, Rampachodavaram - 533 288, rep.by its Properitrix Smt. T.Ratnabai
10. Smt.Suryakantam, D.No.18-20 Prakashnagar, Rajahmundry.

Interim Order:

This ordered that notice do issue to the Respondents here in to show cause why this application should not be complied with and THAT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondnts herein be and hereby are directed to stop the mining operations in the scheduled areas of East Godavari District forthwith subject to the condition that the area covered by mining lease fall within the forest area, pending furher orders on this petition.

- The Hindu Saturday August 28 1993

From Our Correspondent

HYDERABAD. Aug.27 : A Division Bench of the High Court, consisting of Mr. Justice P. Sivaraman Nair and Ms. Justice S.V. Maruthi, on Friday allowed a public-interest writ petition setting aside mining leases granted by the State Government in scheduled areas in the State.

Sakti, a voluntary organisation at Rampachodavarm in East Godavari district had in its writ petition contended that the mining leases were given in violation of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations

- The Hindu, August 28-1993

Hyderabad, July 20. Mr.Justice Immaneni Panduranga Rao of the A.P.High Court has stayed until further orders all the mining operations in the limits of Burra Gram Panchayat in Vizag district.

The judge on Friday, admitted a public interest writ petition filed by "Samatha," a voluntary organisation. The petitioner maintained tht the mining leases were granted in favour of five companies violating the provisions of th e Forest Conservation Act as the lands are in the reserve forest area. The petitioner alleged that the mining operations endngered the famous Burra caves. - Our legal Correspondent.

- by K.Lakshmi Narasimha, Advocate, High Court of A.P.,
ALTR Publications - 1996

Constitution of India, Article 244 (1), V Schedule, Para 5(1) and 5(2) - Governor is empowered to issue notifications and to promulgate regulations for peace and good Government in a scheduled area. Samatha, A Rural Development Society rep. by Its Executive Director, R. Ravi vs. State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary to Gout, Energy, Forests, Environment Science & Technology (Forests-El) Department, Hyderabad and others; 1995 (2) ALT 233 (D.B.).

A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Regulation I of 1959). Section 3 - Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Act No.67 of 1957), Section 11(5) as amended -Under the Regulation, Government had power to lease out lands In agency areas to non-tribals also for mining operations till amendment made to Sec. 11 (5) of Act No.67 of 1957 -By amendment, power of Government to grant leases to non-tribals In agency areas is prohibited.

Held: There is no provision either In Regulation I of 1959 or the Act No. 67 of 1957 prohibiting grant of leases in the lands in agency area for the purpose of mining operations, until Sec. 11 (5) of the Act No. 67 of 1957 was amended by a notification Issued by Governor prohibiting grant of leases to non-tribals in agency areas.

Regulation I of 1959 and the Act No.67 of 1957 have not prohibited transfer of a lease by Government In the agency or scheduled area. A 'person' cannot mean to include the Government' so as to read that the Government is prohibited from transferring the lands to non-tribals. The Governor of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification on 7-8-1991 In exercise of his powers under Para 5(1) of V Schedule to the Constitution directing that the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 shall apply to the Scheduled areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh subject to the modification, by inserting Sec. 11 (5), that no prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted in the Scheduled areas to any person who is not member of the Scheduled Tribe. Sec. 11 (5) was provided to be not applicable in respect of an undertaking owned or controlled by the State or Central Government or to a Society registered under the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 which is composed solely of members of Scheduled Tribes. Because there is no prohibition for grant of leases by the Government, the Governor Issued the notification to protect the interest of tribals prohibiting grant of such leases to non-tribals in agency areas. Samatha, A Rural Development Society rep. by its Executive Director, R. Ravi vs. State of A.P. rep. By its Principal Secretary to Govt., Energy, Forests, Environment Science & Technology (Forests-m) Department, Hyderabad and others; 1995(2)ALT233(D.B.).

A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, (Regulation I of 1959) - Regulation I of 1970 - Section 3(1) - Word 'person' not defined in the Regulation -Word 'person' used in Section 3(1) does not include Government - For arriving at the said decision literal meaning of 'person', provisions of Section 3(2)(b), legislative history of the Regulation, Section 3(1) prior to amendmentand after amendment by Regulation I of 1970, General Clauses Act and Section 2(43) of the Hyderabad General Clauses Act were considered.

Held: By reading sub-clause 2 of Section 3, It is evident that the State is the controlling authority which can take possession of the land from a non-tribal where the transfer is In violation of Sec. 3 and restore back to the original transferor or his heirs. If they are not available, the Government can assign the same to a member of Schedule Tribe or to a Society which consists of members of Scheduled Tribe or otherwise it can dispose it of. That means the State Is empowered to administer the entire land for the peace and good governance of the scheduled areas. For effectively implementing the Regulation, it restores the lands to the displaced tribals. Therefore, If the Government is also read to M Include In the definition of 'a person', It leads to absurdity.

Section 3(1) of Regulation I of 1959, prior to amendment, states transfer of Immovable property In agency area by a tribal to non-tribal only. When the authorities felt difficulty in effectively Implementing the regulation, restore the land to the displaced tribals and in tracing the origin of the non-tribals included In the Tribal areas, an amendment was brought by way of Regulation I of 1970. Section 3(1) of Regulation I of 1959 after amendment through Regulation I of 1970, prohibition was imposed on transferring lands In agency areas by a non-tribal to non-tribal also. After the said amendment, a person whether he is a Scheduled Tribe or not is prohibited from transferring the land in agency area to non-tribal. In Sec. 3(1) of Regulation I of 1959, prior to amendment by Regulation I of 1970, there was prohibition of transfer by a tribal to non-tribal. There Is no provision in Regulation I of 1959 prohibiting transfer of land by Government to tribal or non-tribal. By reading the legislative history, it is evident that there Is no prohibition Imposed by the Regulation on the Government In transferring or leasing out the land to non-tribals or tribals. Thus, legislative history also supports the view that the person does not include the Government.

By reading the definition provided in the A.P. General Clauses Act, it is not possible to read the Government as 'person' as the same is not provided under the Act. The definition of the A.P. General Clauses Act does not include the Government in 'person' and further the provisions of the A.P. General Clauses Act are also applicable to the regulation made by the Governor under para 5 of V Schedule to the Constitution. Unless a statute specifically provides it cannot be read to include the Government as 'a person'. The expression 'person' includes natural person or artificial person like corporation and joint stock company, but it does not include a State or Government. In the present case, though there is no specific exclusion of the Government from the definition of a person in Regulation I of 1959 by tracing the legislative history of the Regulation as well as scrutinising the literal meaning of the word 'person'., it vividly appears that the Government is impliedly excluded from the definition of 'a person'.Samatha, A Rural Development Society rep. by its Executive Director, R. Ravi vs. State of A.P. rep. by Its Principal Secretary to Govt, Energy, Forests, Environment Science & Technology (Forests-Ill) Department, Hyderabad and others; 1995 (2) ALT 233 (D.B.).

Interpretation of Statutes - Interpretation of words, phrases or provisions of statute - Principles of Law - Stated.

Held: Every clause of a statute should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses of the Act, as far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute or series of statutes relating to the subject matter. o

When meaning of a word or phase of the statute is not defined, one way to find out the meaning is to look into the dictionary.

To understand the meaning of a word used in statute, which has not been defined, the provision should be read in the context of the scheme of other relevant provisions in the Act or the Rules. Statute should be construed after ascertaining legislative intent and in the context and scheme of the Act.

For interpretation of a word or phrase in a statute or the statute itself, and to find out correct meaning of a word or phrase, it is relevant to consider the historical background of the statute. Another way of understanding the meaning of the word or phrase of a provision in a statute, which was not defined in the Act, is to look into the General Clauses Act. A statute must be read to find out whether there is any express exclusion or implied exclusion. Samatha, Arural Development Society rep. By its Executive Director, R.Ravivs. State of A.P. rep. by (its Principal Secretary to Gout, Energy, Forests, Environment Science & Technology (Forests-El) Department, Hyderabad and others; 1995 (2) ALT 233 (D.B.).

Precedent - Binding precedent - Any decision of Court not based on reasons not a binding ratio decidendi and therefore per incuriam - Ratio of a decision In a previous case Is binding on the Court in a subsequent case and not the conclusion arrived at therein.

Held- Before the Dlvlslonbench In the earlier case W.P. No.3734 of 1993, the legislative history of the Regulation I of 1959 nor the entire provisions of the Regulation or at least the entire sub- clauses of Section 3 of the Regulation were brought to the notice of the Court nor any judgment concerning the interpretation of the principles of the statutes were brought and also the definition of person under the General Clauses Act was brought to the notice of the Court. In those circumstances the Division Bench held that the 'person' includes the Government

Therefore the finding or observation of the Court in that case cannot be said as ratio decidendi which will be binding on the subsequent cases. It is elementary that what is binding on the Court in a subsequent case is not the conclusion arrived at in a previous decision but the ratio of that decision, for it is the ratio which binds as a precedent and not the conclusion.

Section 23(b) and Section 3(22) of the A.P. General C lauses Act, the contextual interpretation of Section 3 and the sub-clauses thereof of Regulation I of 1959, literal meaning of the term 'person' and the subsequent notification issued by the Governor in exercise of his powers under para 5 (1) of V Schedule to the constitution were not brought be fore the Division Bench of this court while decidingthe case in W.P.No. 3734/1993 nor the previous decisions on the point to interpret the definition 'person'. Therefore, the decision has to be held to be not based on reasons. Hence, the decision in the above judgment, including the Government under the definition of 'a person' is not a binding ratio decidendi and it Is .per incuriam.

Division Bench Judgment in W.P.3734/1993 of A.P. High Court dated 27-8-1993 - per incuriam.

Samatha, A Rural Development Society rep. by its Executive Director, R. Ravi vs. State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary to Gout., Energy, Forests, Environment Science & Technology ( Forests-Ill) Department, Hyderabad and others; 1995 (2) ALT 233 (D.B.).

A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959* (Regulation I of 1959), Section 3 - Interpretation of the Statute - Specific exclusion of State-Implied exclusion of State in the Regulation - It cannot be concluded that 'person' Includes Government on the ground that there is no express exclusion of State In the Regulation - Implied exclusion of Government can be inferred from provisions of the Regulation. Samatha, A Rural Development Society rep. by its Executive Director, R. Ravi vs. State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt, Energy, Forests, Environment Science & Technology (Forests-Ill) Department, Hyderabad and others: 1995 (2) ALT 233 (D.B.I

Principles of Law - Courts need not decide Constitutional questions raised where it is not necessary to decide them in deciding a case Samatha, A Rural Development Society n >p. by Its Executive Director, R. Ravi vs. State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary to Gout, Energy, Forests, Environment Science & Technology (Forests-R>') Department, Hyderabad and others; 1995 (2) ALT 233 (D.B.).

Section 2 of Fore«t (Conservation) Act, 1980, - Grant of mining leases - Consent of Central Government not necessary unless the land leased out for mining purposes includes reserve forest area.

Held: There is nothing on record to show about the illegal occupations in the reserve forest area. When there is no specific material before this Court showing that there is any Inclusion of lessees in the reserve forest area or the lease granted to the lessees is part and parcel of the reserve forest area, the question of contravention of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act does not arise. Further, in these cases the leases were granted long back and they are operating. Where the land is already broken in pursuance of a lease, the consent of the Central Governments provided under Section 2 of the forest (Conservation) Act is not required. If there is any ingress or encroachment on the reserved forest, /.is open to the petitioner to file such a petition before the concerned authorities seeking necessary relief. On filing such petition, the authorities concerned will examine the same and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act. Samatha, A Rural Development Society rep. by Its Executive Director, R. Rout us. State oj'A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt, Energy, Forests, Environment, Science & Technology (Forests-UI) Department, Hyderabad and others; 19.95 (2) ALT 233 (D.B.).

Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, Section 15-G.O. Ms. No. 152dated 28-6-1993 -Certain lands in the area in which mining leases were granted to respondents are declared as reserve forest by the said G.O. - G.O. will not hit leases already granted-It has no retrospective effect. Samatha, A Rural Development Society rep. by tts Executive Director, R. Raul us. State oJA.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary to Gout., Energy, Forests, Environment Science & Technology ( Forests-Ill) Department, Hyderabad and others; 1995 (2) ALT 233 (D.B.).

A.P, Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 19 59 (Regulation 1 of 1G 59), Section 3 - Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Act No.67 of 1957), Section 11(5)- No prohibition for grant of mining leases by Government in favour of non-tribals either under the Regulation or under the Act until the issuance of notification by Governor on 7-8-1991 under para 5(1) of V Schedule to the Constitution prohibiting Government to grant leases to non-tribals-Restriction not imposed retrospectively-Leas es granted earlier to the notification therefore valid.

Held: There is no prohibition for grant of mining leases by the Government either under Regulation I of 1959 or the Act No. 67 of 1 957 until the issuance of the notification by the Governor on 7-8-1991. The said notification does not direct imposition of restriction retrospectively, though the V Schedule of the Constitution empowers the Governor to direct regulations to have retrospective effect. Therefore, in the absence of any retrospective effect of the notification issued by the Governor on 7-8-1991, the notification comes into effect prospectively. There is therefore no force in the con lention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the leases granted earlie r to the notification also have to be declared as void Samatha, A Rural Development Society rep. by its Executive Director, R. Ravi vs. State of A.P. rep. by Its Principal Secretary to Gout., Energy, Forests, Environment Science & Technology ( Forests-IE) Department, Hyderabad and others; 1995 (2) ALT 233 (D.B.}.

(1997) 8 Supreme Court cases 191

Samata ... Appellant
Vs.
State of A.P.and others ... Respondent

Hyderabad Abrasives & Minerals (P) . ... Appellant
Vs
State of A.P.and Others ... Respondent

Para: 3. In the appeal arising from SLP © No.21457 of 1993 filed by Hyderabad Abrasives and Minerals, another Division Bench, earlier had taken diametrically the opposite view and held that mining leases are illegal. The word ‘Person’ used in Section 3 of the Regulation includes Government. Any lease to the non-tribals even of government land situated in a Scheduled Area is in violation of Section 3 and so is void. Equally, it held that a mining lease in a forest area for non-forest purpose or renewal thereof, without prior approval of the Central Government, is in violation of Section 2 of the FC Act. Accordingly, the Division Bench directed the Government to prohibit mining operations in Scheduled Area except that the mines stacked on the surface be permitted to be removed after obtaining proper permits. This decision, though earlier in point of time, was not brought to the notice of the latter Bench mentioned above.

Para: 7. M/s SAKTI, the voluntary organisation filed the writ petition in the High Court questioning the power of the Government to grant mining leases in violation of Section 3 of the Regulation and the FC act. The lease expired in 1994. The Division Bench held that by operation of the prohibition contained in Section 3 of the Regulation and Section 2 of the FC Act, the appellant is not entitled to mining operations.

Para: 237. SAKTI, a voluntary social organisation for the upliftment of tribals in East Godavari District filed the writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court praying therein that the mining activities which are carried on by Respondents 6 t 10 in the said writ petition should be immediately stopped as the grant of mining leases in their favour is in contravention of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Regulation") as well as Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

Para 240: The High Court came to the conclusion that the word "person" in Section 3 of the Regulation includes the Government and therefore, leases granted by the State Government in a Scheduled Area to a non-tribal are void. On the question of applicability of the Conservation Act the High Court also relied upon the decision of this Court in Banshi Ram case and came to the conclusion that for grant of mining lease in a protected forest area for non-tribal purpose the prior approval of the Central Government is mandatory and since the Government did not obtain the approval of the Central Government, leases are in contravention of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

116. It is seen that in one case, the transfer was claimed to have been made in favour of the State instrumentalities, i.e., A.P.S.M.D. Corporation Ltd., It has already been held that transfer of the government land in favour of its instrumentalities, in the eye of law, is not a transfer but one of entrustment of its property for public purpose. Since, admittedly, a public corporation acts in public interest and not for private gain, such transfer stands excluded from the prohibition under para 5(2)(b) of the Fifth Schedule and Section 3(1)(a) of the Regulation. Such transfer or lease, therefore, stands upheld. But a transfer of mining leases to non-tribal natural persons or company, corporation aggregate or partnership firm etc. is unconstitutional, void and inoperative.

In the absence of any total prohibition, undoubtedly Article 298 empowers the Governor being the head of the Executive to sanction transfer of its lands. Since the Executive is enjoined to protect social, economic and educational interests of the tribals and when the State leases out the lands in the Scheduled Areas to the non-tribals for exploitation of mineral resources, it transmits the correlative above constitutional duties and obligation to those who undertake to exploit the natural resources should also improve social, economic and educational empowerment of the tribals. As a part of the administration of the project, the license or lessee should incur the expenditure for:

reforestation and maintenance of ecology in the Scheduled Areas;

maintenance of roads and communication facilities in the Scheduled Areas where operation of the industry has the impact;

supply of potable water to the tribals;

establishment of schools for imparting free education at primary and secondary level and providing vocational training to the tribals to enable them to be qualified, competent and confident in pursuit of employment;

providing employment to the tribals according to their qualifications in their establishment/factory;

establishment of hospitals and camps for providing free medical aid and treatment to the tribals in the Scheduled Areas;

maintenance of sanitation;

construction of houses for tribals in the Scheduled Areas as enclosures.

The expenditure for the above projects should be part of his/its Annual Budget of the industry establishment or business avocation/venture.

In this behalf, at least 20 per cent of the net profits should be set apart as permanent fund as a part of industrial/business activity for establishment and maintenance of water resources, schools, hospitals, sanitation and transport facilities by laying roads etc., This 20% allocation would not include the expenditure for reforestation and maintenance of ecology. It is needless to mention that necessary sanction for exemption of the said amount from income tax liability, may be obtained; and the Centre should ensure grant of such exemption and see that these activities are undertaken, carried on and maintained systematically and continuously. The above obligations and duties, should be undertaken and discharged by each and every person/industry/licensee/lessee concerned so that the constitutional objectives of social, economic and human resource empowerment of the tribals could be achieved and peace and good government is achieved in Scheduled Areas.

128. In cases where similar Acts in other States do not totally prohibit grant of mining leases of the lands in the Scheduled Area, similar Committee of Secretaries and State Cabinet Sub-Committees should be constituted and decision taken thereafter.

129. Before granting leases, it would be obligatory for the State Government to obtain concurrence of the Central Government which would, for this purpose, constitute a Sub-Committee consisting of the Prime Minister of India, Union Minister for Welfare, Union Minister for Environment so that the State's policy would be consistent with the policy of the nation as a whole.

130. It would also be open to the appropriate legislature, preferably after a thorough debate/conference of all the Chief Ministers, Ministers holding the Ministry concerned and the Prime Minister and the Central Ministers concerned, to take a policy decision so as to bring about a suitable enactment in the light of the guidelines laid down above so that there would emerge a consistent scheme throughout the country, in respect of the tribal lands under which national wealth in the form of minerals, is located.

Court stalls bauxite mining 
Statutory permission stipulated to start works

Legal Correspondent 
HYDERABAD: A division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday made it clear that until clearances and permissions from the competent authorities are obtained, no activity for proposed bauxite mining in Visakhapatnam tribal area can take place. The Bench was disposing of a writ petition filed by Dr. Sivarama Krishna of SAKTI, voluntary organisation and another. The petitioner alleged that the memorandum of understanding (MoU) entered into by the State Government with the Jindal Company is illegal and unconstitutional. The Bench said that the petitioners are at liberty to come to court when there is violation of law in future and closed the writ petition making it clear that unless statutory permissions are obtained no work can take place.

Proce.No.1381/Q/93 dated: 20-9-1993

Sub:-Mines and Minerals – quarry leases for cut or dressed blocks of colour granite (other than black) over an extent of 3.55 Hect in S.No.65/2 of Madigunta village, Chintapalli mandal, Visakhapatnam district for a period of 15 yrs Execution of lease deed in favour of Sri Reddy Rajulu Proprietor M/s Gallop Granites – work orders – Issued.

Ref:- 1. Proc.No.2543/Q1/93 dt.1.9.93 from the Dy.Director of Mines & Geology,
Visakhapatnam.
2. Letter dated 20.9.93 from Sri Ch.Hanumantha Rao GPA Reddy Rajuly

ORDER:

SANCTION is hereby accorded to Sri Reddy Rajulu, Proprietor M/s Gallop Granites to work quarry lease for cut or dressed blocks of colour granite (other than black) over an extent of 3.55 Hectares in S.No.65/2 of Madigunta village, Chintapalli mandal, Visakhapatnam dist. for a period of 15 years with effect from 9.1993 to 9.2008, subject to the satisfaction of Andhra pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and fulfillment of conditions stipulated and also special conditions specified in the annexure appended to the sanction order.

The grantee should maintain all the records and accounts in the forms preseribed by the Government. The lessee should submit quarterly returns in Form-C so as to reach the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, Dy.Director of Mines & Geology and Asst.Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam not later than 7th day of quarter to which they relate. The grantee is also directed to obtain despatch permits under Rule 34 of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 from the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Visakhapatnam before transportation of material.

Government reserves the right to cancel the quarry leases granted under Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 without assigning any reasons and giving notice.

Asst.Director of Mines & Geology, Visakhapatnam.

To
Sri Reddy Rajuly,
M/s Gallop Granites,
Door No.7-8-17, Harbor Park,
Kasturiba Marg, Visakhapatnam –17.

Copy submitted to the Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad for favour of Information.
Copy submitted to the Dy.Director of Mines & Geology, Visakhapatnam for favour of information.
Copy submitted to the Collector, Visakhapatnam for favour of information
Copy Submitted the Dist.Development Officer, Chintapalli ZPP, Visakhapatnam for information
Copy to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chintapalli for information
Copy to the Sarpanch, Madigunta village, Panchayat for information
Copy to the Labour Enforcement Officer, Central, Port Area, Vizag-35.

Sir,

Sub:-Mines and Quarries – Viskhapatnam District – Quarry – Lease for colour Granite – Extent Hec.4.00 in S.No.65/2 in Madigunta village – Chintapalli mandal – Application of M/s Gallop Granites Ltd. – Classification and availability of the Area – Inspection the site – Report sent – Regarding.

Ref: Lr.No.1381/Q4/93 of A.P. of Geology, Visakhapatnam dt.6.5.95

I invite attention to the reference cited. I have inspected the site in S.No.65/2 of Madigunta village. The total area of the Survey and Sub Division 65-2 is Hec.3.55 ars. The land was classified as A.W.D. Gayal and it was rocky hill with GRANITE. The rate of land assessed at 2.91 Hector and classified as CST VII S.No.

Yours faithfully,

Mandal Revenue Officer,
Chintapally

Copy to M/s Gallop Granite Ltd.
C/o.Reddy Rajulu D/No.7-8-17, Harbour port, Kesturba

4 January 1995

Sir,

Sub: Proceedings of Assistant Director Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam, sanctioning a lease for quarrying granite in the Madigunta village of Chintapally mandal Survey No. 65/2 extent 3.55 hectares for a period of 15 years with effect from dated 20.9.1993.- Action requested for cancellation of lease - reg.

Ref: Proceedings No. 1381/9/93, dated 20.9.1993 of Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam.

<><><>

I am glad to introduce our organisation SAKTI working for the welfare of tribals based at Rampachodavaram. Recently we have extended our activities to the Koyyuru and adjacent mandals of Visakha agency area.

I came to know about above referred lease and consequent attempts of the company to start the quarrying of the granite in the Madigunta village during my field visits.

I am of the opinion that the lessee one Reddi Rajulu who is proprietor of M/s. Gallop Granites acting through a general power of Attorney Holder Sri C.H. Hanumantha Rao is a benami for the non-tribal partners in the company.

Reddi Rajulu is a poor tribal of Puligommulapadu village of Addateegala mandal, East Godavari District who has neither financial nor managerial capabilities to take up the quarrying business operations.

I think the Assistant Director Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam did not enquire into the details and the legal positions before sanctioning quarry lease in the Scheduled Areas.

Sanctioning lease to the firms having non-tribals members or power of Attorney Holder is violative of A.P. Schedule Area Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1/59. At our instance, the High Court of A.P. has quashed the leases issued to non-tribals in the judgement delivered in the Writ Petition 3734 of 1993. As a result of this judgement mining leases issued to non-tribals all over the scheduled areas have been cancelled by the Department of Mines and Industries .

I request you to conduct a detailed enquiry into the schedule tribes status of Reddi Rajulu and the bylaws and the members of the Gallop Granites for which he is the proprietor and take up the necessary action in this regard.

I came to know that the local tribals of these villages have represented to you and to the Project Officer ITDA to help them in forming a Labour Cooperative to extract the granite.

I request you to help the local tribals in benefiting with the resources available in their areas, by initiating an enquiry and suitable action against the lease sanctioned by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

P. Sivarama Krishna

SAKTI

Copies to:
1. Director Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh,
2. The Project Officer, ITDA, Paderu, Visakhapatnam Dist.
3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam.
4. Shri A.L. Narsimha murthy, Visakha Zilla Navanirmana Samithi, Narsipatnam, Visakha Dt.

THE LEASE WAS CANCELLED BY THE SUB-COLLECTOR, PADERU

- The Times of India August 2 - C Lokeswara Rao

The Times of India News Serivce

HYDERABAD, August 2.

The Andhra Pradesh high court has granted interim orders staying a state government move to privatise exploitation of Sundra trees. "Kattha", an ingredient of pan masala, is produced form Sundra wood.

Mr Justice Upendralal Waghray issued the interim orders on a petition filed by Dr Sivaramakrishna of Sakti, a voluntary agency. The orders said that sundra trees in Karimnagar and Khammam districts should not be leased to anyone except tribals.

The move to privatise exploitation of sundra trees is viewed as a typical example of the way government takes steps detrimental to lip service to the goal of tribal welfare. The injustices suffered by tribals provide a ready plank for Naxalites. Extremists also get to collect donations from traders and contractors. Thus, in more ways that one, the government’s move mocks at the strategy of adopting a holistic approach towards the Naxalite problem.

In the case of sundra trees, the present move for privatisation seeks to reverse the commendable steps to reverse the commendable steps taken by the very same state government a few years ago. Thanks to the co-operatives promoted by it since 1988, the tribals who used to work for wages to produce "kattha" , graduated to the status of members

of co-operatives who get wages for work done and can also look forward to their share of profits from the sale of finished "katha" to merchants. If the government were to go ahead with privatisation, these tribals would have had to revert to the status of labourers working for wages with privately owned "katha" units.

The Andhra Pradesh government issued orders in 1988 to limit lease of sundra trees in Adilabad, Karimnagar, Khammam and Warangal districts to co-operatives of tribals. The integrated tribal development agency took the initiative to promote such co-operatives and teach them "Kattha" making with the help of labourers from Madhya Pradesh. In the past, local tribals used to work with contractors form M.P. for wages.

The government’s initiative worked well, going by the experience of tribal families selected for training in remote areas like Utnoor in Adilabad district or Eturu Nagaram in Warangal district. Trainee families picked up stipend wages of Rs 1050 per month and also earned profits of about Rs 7000 per family, after deducting expenses like payments to skilled labour from M.P. and royalty payable to forest department.

What merits admiration is the fact that poor tribals were imparted skills and enabled to secure a just share in the profits earned by producing a value added product from forest produce. Kattha produced from sundra wood fetched Rs 134 per kg in an auction held in June 1991. Twenty one traders from different states took part in the sale.

The orders issued in 1988 for granting sundra leases only to tribals were valid for three years. This year there were moves to bring in private parties. Non-tribal parties from Chhatharpur in Madhya Pradesh, Kota in Rajasthan and Hyderabad were reportedly in the running for lease of trees.

However, when orders were issued in June 1991, it was mentioned that sundra trees in Karimnagar and Khammam districts would be leased to other parties. This meant that the laudable venture of promoting tribal cooperatives was to be continued in Adilabad and Warangal districts.

This partial move for privatisation also evoked protests. Since cooperatives had worked well in some places there was no reason why private traders should be brought in other districts. There were also fears that once private traders entered the field on some pretext or the other, it would be difficult to control their activities. They may hold permits for cutting and transporting specific sundra trees to katha units, but they may misuse the permits for cutting other trees and transport them elsewhere. These fears were mostly based on past experience.

Ownership of Minor Forest Produce
Staying eviction of tribals from ‘forests’
EVICTING 10 MILLIONS TRIBALS FROM FORESTS
STATUS QUO ON TRIBALS’ EVICTION ORDERED

-The Hindu : October 25, 2002

By our Legal Correspondent

HYDERABAD, OCT 24, A Division Bench of the A.P. High Court, comprising two judges, on Thursday directed the State Government to maintain status quo regarding the proposals to evict tribals from forest lands.

These orders of far-reaching consequences were passed in a writ petition filed by P.Sivaramakrishna on behalf of SAKTI, a tribal voluntary organisation. The petitioner complained to the court that in the name of a circular from the Central Government and observations of the Supreme Court, the State Government and its officers were terrorising tribal people to evict them from the forest lands.

The judges – Motilal B.Naik and Dalva Subramanyam – enquired with Government pleaders as to how such action was taken.

The petitioner traced the history of the action of the Government to push the tribals out of the forests since 1855 and lamented that present constitutional governments were pursuing the same policies. Counsel for the petitioner, Ramalingeswara Rao, brought to the notice of the court that the Government wanted to create rights under Telugu Girijana Magani Samaradhana. He said that in 1987, directions were issued not to evict the tribals from the possession of forest lands occupied prior to October, 1980.

The Central Government asked the State Government to submit proposals for regularisation of encroachment prior to 1980 and the State Government had not yet submitted such proposals.

Mr.Ramalingeswara Rao said that there were 77661 acres of land under cultivation in reserved forests prior to 1980 and they were eligible for regularisation as per the scheme formulated by the Central Government. It was averred that the tribals could not be evicted from the forests in a brutal manner.

REHABILITATION OF THE DISPLACED 
BY COAL MINES IN A.P

Singareni Collieries Company Limited in Andhra Pradesh is a company under public sector excavating coal predominately in the scheduled areas (Tribal areas) of Andhra Pradesh (A.P.) since 1889. The coal belt is spread over Khammam, Warangal, Karimnagar and Adilabad districts of A.P. The company identified 19 Coal and Lignite deposits. At present the company is operating 13 mines and in the year 2000, it started acquiring lands in Thiryani mandal of Adilabad district to start 'Khairguda project'.

In 1989, the Tribal Welfare Department proposed a plan for the ?Development of Tribals in coal belt of A.P.?. In 1990 the Social Welfare Department of State Government issued a Government Order (G.O.) on the rehabilitation of tribals displaced by mines, wild life sanctuaries and development project. The order directed the company to provide appropriate employment to the displaced. But the company secured exemption from this order from E.F.E.S.S.T (G.O.Ms.No. 310 dt 11-11-99) from providing employment.

The company in one of the affidavits, stated that there are 5000 land losers and 800 writ petitions are pending seeking employment. It claims that it is providing funds to purchase lands to rehabilitate the displaced.

The Tribal Welfare Department in their report ?Development of Tribals of coal belt areas of A.P.?, identified 55 mandals as effected by the presence of collieries and its various operations. The total area is 11078 Sq.kms. The total population in these mandals is 19.48 lakhs (1981 census) out of which tribal population is 4.06 lakhs i.e. 38.4% in the total population.

The Tribals of Thiryani mandal of Adilabad District, effected by Khairguda project approached the High Court for initiating land acquisition without consulting Gram sabha as per PESA. The Collieries obtained the approval of Gram sabha and Project Officer (P.O.), Integrated Tribal Development Agency (I.T.D.A.) convened a land purchasing committee and approved the R.R. plan prepared the Collieries.

It is interesting to note that both the parties, tribals referred to Samatha judgment. The tribals claimed that according to the judgement, a body governed by tribals only should acquire lands. The Collieries rebutted citing the same judgment that State and Central Government companies are allowed to operate. But both parties did not refer to the directions of the judgement prescribing criteria for rehabilitation. In April 2001 the tribals approached SAKTI to do the needful. SAKTI informed the Government and Company to revise their rehabilitation plan not only according to the Court direction and also following the rehabilitation policy 2004. There in no response. The High Court issued notice to the Company and the Government.

SAKTI informed the tribals that the Government of Orissa directed the companies to provide 5% share and take up responsibility of developing the area and Tribals upto 50 Kms around the mines. Undoing the concession allowed to the States and Central Government institutions, the tribals of Khammam forced the government to distribute 1600 acres of cashew plantations owned by APFDC in Khammam district. Let us see to what extent the tribals and their organisations extract benefits for their improvement and how Govt. responds to the Writ Petition.

Between:

‘SAKTI’ a Voluntary social organisation
for the upliftment of Tribal people
(Regd.No.76/85) Rampachodavaram,
East Godavari District,
Represented by its Director, Dr.P.Sivaramakrishna … Petitioner

And
1. Union of India
Represented by its Secretary to Govt.
Ministry of Rural Dev. (Department of
Land Resources), New Delhi. 
and 6 others … Respondents

For the reasons stated in the acccompanying affidavit, the above named petitioner prays that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to prepare a Resettlement and Rehabilitation Package for the Project Affected Families of Khairguda Open Cast Project of Bellampalli region of Adilabad District of the 7th respondent in the light of the National Policy of Resettlement and Rehabilitation for project Affected Families 2003 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1997 SC 3297 and implement the same within a time frame and pass such other orders as this Hon’ble court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Hyderabad

08-07-2004 COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

The Andhra Pradesh government taken up JFM programmes with World Bank funds in 1993. SAKTI supported by SPWD hosted the first state level conference of NGOs and officials in December 1993 in Rampachodavaram. Then Principle Secretary forest department Sri S.Ray participated for three days in this conference. In the preparatory workshop conducted in Maredumilli forest guesthouse preceding the conference SAKTI proposed that here after the tribal should implement and follow FC act either by checking the government where it goes wrong and supporting it where it is needed. In the conference SAKTI shared its experience through charts photographs, distributed material on the experience of Chipco movement taking up afforestation; the forest protections committees of people successfully protecting forests in 20000 village in Orissa state; the traditional management system of common property resources particularly among the tribals of East Godavari. The venue of the workshop was named after the local idiom used for such system ‘Noorinti Adavi’ which means 'forest of hundred house holds’. Already several villagers are protecting forests in drought hit Anantapur district.

SAKTI tried to impress upon the participants, while the government orders allowing deforestation can be challenged in court of law, the inconsistencies and loopholes in the management allowing smuggling, not following silviculture principles and under payment of wages and corruption in executing the works can only be checked by a vigilant NGO moment educating themselves and community in forest operations and influencing an attitudinal change in the foresters and forcing a change in the policies on the ground. SAKTI felt that the department should not be allowed to wash of its hands pumping money to JFM. It is duty bound to follow the guidelines of MoEF, activise forums constituted under the wild life protection act and allow the poor to participate in conflict resolution – forest protection afforestation. SAKTI went ahead with its Nurinti Adavi community forest management programme. Sri Aravind Khare the then Executive Director of SPWD observed that -

"NGO-supported community-based conservation: NGOs are supporting community struggle for conservation of their resources in two ways: one is to fight the attempts of entrenched classes to do any more damage and the second is to devise positive solution for conservation. For example, Sakti is a federation of 23 community groups who have been protecting their forests for more than 10 years, much before the advent of JFM, and, because of their strength, are in a position to consolidate their conservation efforts by utilizing JFM provisions".

- Aravind Khare in Communities and Conservation,
Natural Resource Management in South and Central Asia. Page No:98
– Published by Kalpavriksh in 1998

Instead of taking afforestation under the specific guidelines of MOEF inviting proposals under "Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Association of Scheduled Tribe and Rural poor in Afforestation of Degraded Forests" the department went ahead with JFM programme in the lands under theoccupation of tribals in the reserve forests with fond hope of erasing the hope of individual ownership from the minds of tribals.

"The task of the VSS is to protect land falling within its revenue boundaries. But the use of forests was not based on revenue demarcations. So the VSS took on the responsibility to keep away the ‘outsiders’. The project funds compelled the VSS to raise and protect the ‘boundaries’ from its traditional users. Overnight, many people lost access to grazing lands, fuel wood and livelihood. Even beedi leaf, a seasonal plant that is harvested when the leaves are tender and within a short time was not accessible. the VSS then had to stop grazing by cattle from the people in the village. Then began curbs on shifting (podu) cultivation – a practice among tribals to grow subsistence food crops on hill slopes. The appraisal mission of the World Bank has acknowledged with satisfaction that the project has succeeded in reversing and podu".

- Participatory Forestry and Peoples Entitlements
– A Case Study, Dr. K.S.Gopal, CEC.,

The staff appraisal report of World Bank identified delay in setting of rights of the people in the Wildlife Sanctuaries is one of the reasons for the hostilities between forest department and tribals in A.P. District Collectors who are vested with powers to settle the rights used to act as check on the claims of forest department. But forest department in 1997 delegated the powers of District Collector to one of their senior officers in the department, the conservator. Inspite of getting such sweeping powers the department did not initiate the process of settlement.

GOs protested the attempts of government inviting private investment in the JFM programmes and opposing the alleged attempts of the forest department to dislocate the tribals from their lands covered by JFM. Govt changed the name of JFM to CFM by a order again announced a state policy of forest management similar to 1993 order.

The Department confined involvement of JFM committees only to the works supported by the World Bank. When the government released funds for the excavation of trenches on the boundaries, the department executed the works importing their choice of labour.

Tribal efforts to improve their involvement in the process:

In 1993 Upholding SAKTI petition against leasing of lands to non-tribals the court ruled that ‘person includes government’. The Commissioner Tribal Welfare instructed to the Collector, Khammam to evict APFDC managed by a govt. nominated body of non-tribals having cashew plantations in the scheduled areas of the district. But in SAMATA judgement in 1997 government and its corporations are allowed to own lands. But tribals of Khammam district forced the FDC to distribute 1600 acres of cashew plantations to the self help groups. The Chenchu tribes of Mahaboobnagar district exposed and the department supporting fishing for commercial purposes in Nagarjuna sagar – Srisailam Tiger reserve (wild life sanctuary) where such activity is prohibited under law and checked the same through court orders. They obtained court directions to dispose the proposal regarding declaration of their villages in the sanctuary as revenue villages. For the last 50 years since independence, government ignored to enroll them as voters in the elections of Panchayat Raj institutions. Now not only they are enrolled as voters; they elected their representatives. They are demanding active participation in the management of Sanctuary participating in the state wild life advisory board and other related forums and insisting a stake in working out tourism programme.

In May 2002 govt of India issued a circular to take up measures evict encroachers from forest lands. SAKTI traced the history off these encroachments and the abandoned attempts to regularise them in a petition filed in High Court of A.P. The court stayed the eviction of tribals from forest lands.

"NGO-supported community based conservation: NGOs are supporting community struggle for conservation of their resources in two ways: one is to fight the attempts of entrenched classes to do any more damage and the second is to devise positive solutions for conservation. For example, SAKTI is a federation of 23 community groups who have been protecting their forests for more than 10 years, much before the advent of JFM, and, because of their strength, are in a position to consolidate their conservation efforts by utilizing JFM provisions."

-Aravind Khare Community based conservation in India-1998

GCC has monopoly rights to purchase Minor Forest Produce. There are 30 Co-operative Societies affiliated to Girijan Co-operative Corporation holding monopoly rights over the purchase of NTFP. The membership in these societies is confined to tribes. The Presidents of these societies become the members of GCC and in turn are supposed to elect the Board of Directors of GCC. These elections are required by law to be held every three years. The Board of GCC is however, nominated by Government. Since 1985, no elections were conducted to any of the 30 affiliated co-operatives.

Unless tribals are members of the local Co-operative, they cannot participate in the elections. Thus they cannot participate in the process of purchase price fixation and policy making of vital functions of the monopoly purchaser. Realising this, and after consulting community members, SAKTI filed a writ and the High Court ordered elections to be held to these societies in 1995. The very notification of these elections created enthusiasm among the tribes as the aspirants sought to inform themselves of the activities of the co-operatives and what benefits they could obtain for their electorate. The tribes people also became involved in this process. Thus the elections elicited interest in a democratic forum and the issues that they confront while selling produce to the monopoly buyer of NTFP. An important outcome was the change in perception of the way the tribals viewed the GCC: no longer as being an interlocutor but rather as being an extension of their own community.