Once Possession Is Lawful Under Government Lease, Forest Authorities Cannot Interfere: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Forest Department’s Second Appeal Against Mining Lease Holder

“Unchallenged Evidence of Possession by Lease Deed Prevails—Forest Officials Failed to Prove Allegations of Encroachment”, In a strongly worded and precedent-affirming ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, upheld the decisions of both lower courts granting permanent injunction in favour of a private lessee conducting mining activities. The Court held that lawful possession under a registered lease deed granted by the Mines and Geology Department must be protected, and that unauthorised interference by forest authorities—without evidence—cannot be permitted.

Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao dismissed the second appeal filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kadapa and Forest Range Officer, Rayachoty, reiterating that concurrent findings of fact based on unchallenged evidence cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless a substantial question of law arises. The Court found that the defendants had neither produced evidence nor cross-examined the plaintiff, rendering their defence legally untenable.

“Unsubstantiated Allegation of Forest Encroachment Cannot Defeat Possession Derived from Government Lease”

The case stemmed from a suit (O.S. No. 74/2012) filed by Kunchala John Karunakar, seeking a permanent injunction against the Forest Department to restrain it from interfering with his mining operations on land in Survey No. 2865 of Nuliveedu village. The plaintiff relied on G.O.Ms. No. 48 dated 25.02.2012, by which the Government of Andhra Pradesh had granted him a 20-year lease for mining pyrophyllite, followed by a registered lease deed dated 03.05.2012 and official mining work orders dated 05.05.2012.

The defendants—the Divisional Forest Officer and the Forest Range Officer—contended that the land in question formed part of Madhavaram Reserve Forest, and that the plaintiff had illegally entered the forest, extracted minerals, and committed offences under the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. However, they failed to adduce any evidence or witness in support of these serious allegations.

The trial court decreed the suit in the plaintiff’s favour, which was upheld in A.S. No. 5/2015 by the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty. The present second appeal was filed by the forest authorities against these concurrent findings.

“Second Appeal Lies Only on Substantial Question of Law—No Interference with Pure Questions of Fact”

The High Court reiterated settled law that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is not a rehearing of facts, and can be admitted only if a substantial question of law arises. The Court clarified:

“The right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right. The second appeal could be admitted only when the appellant satisfies this Court that a substantial question of law arises.”

Referring to Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi [(2007) 8 SCC 155], the Court stressed that where concurrent findings are based on evidence, and two views are possible, the view taken by the lower appellate court must prevail.

The High Court found that: “The plaintiff’s evidence, both oral and documentary, remained unchallenged. The defendants failed to cross-examine the plaintiff or enter the witness box to prove their defence. In such a situation, a presumption arises that their case is not correct.”

Citing Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao [(1999) 3 SCC 573], the Court reaffirmed:

“Where a party does not enter the witness box, and does not subject himself to cross-examination, a presumption arises that the case set up by him is false.”

“Lawful Possession by Lease Must Be Protected—Bare Injunction Suit Maintainable Against State Interference”

The forest authorities argued that the suit was not maintainable as no notice under Section 80 CPC was served. The Court rejected this at the threshold, noting that an application under Section 80(2) CPC was filed to dispense with notice, and that the defendants had not raised the issue either in written statement or before the appellate court.

The Court reasoned: “If the issuance of notice under Section 80(1) CPC is waived by the defendants without objection in their written statement, then there is no impediment for the Court to entertain the suit.”

On the substantive claim, the Court found that the plaintiff was in legal possession by virtue of a registered lease deed executed under a valid G.O., and held that:

“A suit for injunction simplicitor is concerned only with possession. Where possession is lawful, the interference must be restrained.”

The Court concluded that the plaintiff’s possession—preceded by a Government Order, lease deed, and official mining permissions—was lawful, and therefore, his apprehension of interference by forest officials was legitimate and warranted judicial protection.

Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao dismissed the appeal, holding:

“The concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. No substantial question of law arises.”

The ruling reinforces two important legal principles:

1. Where possession is lawful under government authority, it is entitled to protection against administrative overreach, and
2. Second appeals cannot be used to reargue facts or mount speculative claims when lower courts have arrived at concurrent factual findings based on unchallenged evidence.

Date of Decision: 29 August 2025