M.Khalid Basha vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the interim injunction order granted in favour of the petitioner, while proving his possession of the saw mill premises, does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 4(1)(a) of the A.P. Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Rules 2018. This rule explicitly mandates the production of a title deed or a lease deed of the premises, or an undertaking by the applicant that the premises are on lease from the landowner. The Court reasoned that the existence of a dispute over the property, evidenced by the gift deeds executed by the father in favour of other sons and the pendency of civil suits, means that the subject property is contested. Issuing a direction to renew the lease based solely on possession, especially after the expiry of the original lease period and in light of the new rules, is not permissible. Therefore, the Court found no merit in the Writ Petition and upheld the impugned order of the 2nd respondent refusing to renew the license. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, operating M/s. Mubarak Saw Mills since 2001, challenges the refusal to renew his saw mill license by the 2nd respondent. The property was initially leased to the petitioner by his father (4th respondent). The license was last renewed on March 25, 2015, until December 31, 2017. Revised rules under the Forest Act, specifically Rule 4(1)(a) of the A.P. Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Rules 2018, require a title deed or lease deed for license renewal. Family disputes arose, and the father (4th respondent) executed a gift deed of the property to the petitioner's brother (5th respondent) in February 2015. The petitioner filed O.S.No.12 of 2018 seeking declaration of title and obtained a temporary injunction on April 13, 2018, which is still in force. Despite this, the 4th and 5th respondents notified the authorities not to renew the license. The 2nd respondent issued a notice, and upon receiving the petitioner's reply with the injunction order, passed the impugned order refusing renewal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the interim injunction order granted by the Civil Court in O.S.No.12 of 2018 satisfies the requirement of Rule 4(1)(a) of the A.P. Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Rules 2018 for the renewal of a saw mill license, which mandates the production of a title deed or lease deed. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the existing injunction order in his favour, stemming from a dispute over the property, should be considered sufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 4(1)(a), especially since the license was initially obtained based on a lease deed from his father. He contended that renewing the license would be just and proper given the circumstances. Revenue/State's contention (implied through the impugned order and the court's reasoning): The authorities, by refusing renewal, relied on the strict interpretation of Rule 4(1)(a), which requires a title deed or lease deed. They contended that an interim injunction, while proving possession, does not equate to a title deed or lease deed as stipulated by the rules. The pendency of civil suits and gift deeds executed by the father in favor of other sons indicate a dispute over ownership that the interim injunction does not resolve for the purpose of license renewal under the new rules.