Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has clarified that district collectors lack the authority to denotify forest land and convert it into general land. This decision arose from a petition concerning the sale of 72 acres in survey number 249, located in Kongarakalan village, Ibrahimpatnam mandal, Rangareddy district.
Justice CV Bhaskar Reddy instructed state and local officials to halt any transactions related to this land, emphasizing that no alterations in land classification should occur.
The case was brought forth by petitioner K Praveen Goud, who contested the Rangareddy district collector’s directive to remove the 72 acres from the list of prohibited lands.
The judge firmly stated, “You should not allow any change in the nature or classification of this land. Nor can any third-party interests be created over this land,” mandating that officials regard the land as prohibited until the court’s review is completed.
Petitioner’s counsel, Vijay B Paropakari, highlighted that the entire 1,026-acre area had been designated as reserve forest land under the Telangana Forest Act of 1967.
A letter from the district collector dated November 16, 2019, had instructed officials to denotify the 72 acres. However, records indicated that this land had already been sold to multiple buyers, including Nannapaneni Nanditha and others, with instructions for issuing pattadar passbooks to these new owners.
The petitioner argued that the collector’s actions were unlawful due to a lack of due process and inquiry before denotifying the land.
Upon reviewing the case, Justice Bhaskar Reddy noted an absence of documentation supporting the collector’s decision to denotify the land.
He expressed a preliminary view that such authority did not exist under the Forest Act. The judge further directed both the revenue department principal secretary and the district collector to confirm whether the land remains classified as reserve forest land and whether proper legal procedures were followed in its identification.
The court has requested responses by February 24 regarding these issues and has also sought clarification on a memo issued by an administrative officer of the district collectorate related to this matter
