ORDER : The facts and law raised in these writ petitions are one and the same. Hence, both these writ petitions are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The lis revolves around the land extent Ac.15.00 cents in Sy.No.684 of T.Sakibanda Village, Chinnamandyam Mandal, Kadapa District. Assignments were made in favour of the petitioners and respondents sought to cancel the said assignments on the ground that the land is Reserve Forest land and the Tahsildar granted DKT pattas in respect of the forest land contrary to the provisions of Paragraph No.18(1) of the Revenue Board Standing Order No.15. 3. The gravamen of the petitioners in WP.No.5418 of 2021 is that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land assigned in their favour by the 6th respondent vide DKT patta Nos.8/1419, 9/1419, 10/1419, 12/1419 dated 14.04.2010 whereby each petitioner was assigned land extent Ac.2.50 cents in Sy.No.684/4, 684/5, 684/6 and 684/8 of Devarandlapalli, T.Sakibanda Village, Chinnamandyam Mandal, Kadapa District. Their names were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks were also issued vide khata Nos.930, 931, 932, 933, 934 & 936. In Form 1B and adangals their names are reflected as D Form pattadars. As per RSR, the subject land in Sy.No.684 of T. Sakibanda village is classified as Gayalu and subject land is purely revenue land. It is not a reserve forest land as claimed by the forest department and respondent authorities are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land by the petitioners without issuing any notice and without cancelling the said pattas. 4. On 08.03.2021, learned Government Pleader, on instructions, stated that there was a joint survey conducted by the revenue department and forest department in relation to Sy.No.684 of Devaravandlapalli, T.Sakibanda Village, Chinnamandyam Mandal, Kadapa District on 19.8.2020 and it was agreed by both the departments that Sy.No.684 would fall within the forest area and the said survey was conducted in the presence of the petitioners and it was also found that the petitioners were not carrying on agricultural activities in the said land and do not appear to be in possession of the land; however, learned counsel for the petitioners disputed the same and submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the land and the report of joint survey has already been filed by the petitioners along with the material papers. Hence, this Court while posting the writ petition to 20.03.2021 for counter directed that status quo on the land, obtained as on that date, shall be maintained for a period of two weeks. Thereafter, the order has been extended from time to time and finally the same was extended until further orders on 21.10.2021. 5. While the things stood thus, the 3rd respondent issued show cause notice in Ref.No.E1/494/2021, dated 17.06.2021, which was served on the petitioners on 17.07.2021, exercising power as per BSO 15 para 18(1), to show cause as to why the land assigned to the petitioners in Sy.Nos.684 of T.Sakibanda village should not be cancelled as the subject land is prohibited for assignment in view of its location in forest as reported, and to submit explanation within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which it would be construed that the petitioners have no explanation to offer and final decision will be taken based on the available record. The petitioners filed WP.No.15134 of 2021 on the ground that the said show cause notice was issued contrary to the joint inspection report dated 05.11.2021 and report of the Tahsildar dated 29.05.2021 and resurvey settlement register where the land is classified as Gayalu and not a forest land and also contrary to the interim order of status quo granted in IA.No.1 of 2021 in WP.No.5418 of 2021 dated 08.03.2021. 6. These two matters are listed before this Court after obtaining appropriate orders from the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for disposal. 7. The case as culled out from the counters filed by the respondent authorities in both the writ petitions is that in the year 2010, the then Tahsildar, Chinnamandem Mandal granted DKT pattas of land extent Ac.2.50 cents each in Sy.No.684/4, 684/5, 684/6, 684/7 and 684/8 total extent Ac.15.00 cents, to the petitioners and some other persons who were residing at Devarandlapalli of T.Sakibanda Village of Chinnamandem Mandal, without scrutinizing the sub-division records. The Tahsildar, Chinnamandem treating the land extent Ac.81.07 cents in S.No.684, as per RSR wherein it is classified as Gayalu (Un assessed waste), granted assignments to the following persons. The Tahsildar, Chinnamandem treating the land extent Ac.81.07 cents in S.No.684, as per RSR wherein it is classified as Gayalu (Un assessed waste), granted assignments to the following persons. Sl.No. Sy.No. Extent (in Acs) Name of the beneficiary DKT No and date 1 684-4 2.50 Smt. Maddirala Reddi Sudha, W/o Srinivasulu Reddy 8/1419, 14.04.2010 2 684-8 2.50 Smt Bodeddula Bayamma, W/o Konda Reddy 9/1419, 14.04.2010 3 684-6 2.50 Sri Maddiralla Kancham Reddy, S/o Bayya Reddy 10/1419, 14.04.2010 4 684-9 2.50 Smt Nallapureddigari Duggamma, W/o.Gangi Reddy 11/1419, 14.04.2010 5 684-5 2.50 Smt Maddirala Naramma, W/o Bayya Reddy 12/1419, 14.04.2010 6 684-7 2.50 Smt Maddirala Chinnakka, W/o.Chinna Reddy 13/1419, 14.04.2010 Total 15.00 As per the joint survey conducted at the request of Smt B. Bayamma and five others, as per the instructions of District Collector, Kadapa vide Ref.No.E6/1634/2020, dated 01.08.2020, the following officers attended the joint inspection for survey of the land in Sy.No.684 extent Ac.22.57 cents of Compartment No.721 in Papepalli Revenue Forest of Chinnamandem Mandal on 25.09.2020. Sl.No. Name Designation 1 Sri G.V. Nageswara Rao Tahsildar, Chinnamandem 2 Sri U. Prasad Rao Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, Kadapa 3 Sri S. Ramesh Babu Deputy Range Officer, Rayachoty 4 Sri D.D. Mallikarjuna Naidu Deputy Inspector of Survey (TF), Kadapa 5 Smt A. Sravanthi Revenue Inspector, Chinnamandem 6 Smt G. Bhuvaneswari Mandal Surveyor, Chinnamandem 7 Sri S.V. Subbarayudu Forest Beat Officer, T. Sakibanda Beat 8 Sri S. Shanshavalli Village Revenue Officer, T. Sakibanda 9 Sri P. Ram Prasad Village Surveyor, T. Sakibanda All the above officers have inspected the boundary of Sy.No.684 of T. Sakibanda village to decide the boundary dispute on the Southern side of the village with reference to the village map, FMB of the above village duly taking into consideration of Taluk map and forest beat map. As per the joint inspection of above offices, it was reported that, as per RSR of T.Sakibanda Village of Chinnamandem Mandal, the land in Sy.No.684 total extent Ac.81.07 cents is classified as Government (G) at column No.4 and unassessed (U) at column No.5 and its features are dotted at column No.16 and remarks column No.17 noted as ‘gayalu’. The land in Sy.No.684 is Ac.58.26 cents when calculated through traverse data but in the RSR the extent in Sy.No.684 is noted as 81.07 cents and there is difference in extent. The land in Sy.No.684 is Ac.58.26 cents when calculated through traverse data but in the RSR the extent in Sy.No.684 is noted as 81.07 cents and there is difference in extent. The petitioners and villagers claim that FMB has been wrongly notified and there is a need to correct FMB to match the RSR extent of T. Sakibanda village. Further, the report says that the land parcel of extent Ac.22.81 cents is claimed by the forest department as notified as reserve forest as per the gazette notification Ootacamund, August 23rd, 1905. New survey numbers have been formed an extent of 15.78 hectares and its equal to 39 acres from 1227 to 1233 on 01.11.1974 vide proceedings of the Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, Kadapa vide R.Dis.4052/74 dated 04.11.1974. Later DKT pattas were issued in the year 2010 an extent Ac.15.00 cents of T.Sakibanda Village. But there are no scrutinized sub division records of DKT pattas. The report further states that the pattadars are not cultivating the land at the time of joint inspection and they are not having physical possession of the land. On observation of forest map of Papepalli East Reserve Forest, obtained from forest department, the boundary of reserve forest matches with shape of survey No.684 currently in FMB and also with village map. The total extent of Ac.81.07 cents as notified as per RSR cannot be reconciled with this shape of survey field. On closer observation of the forest map, it can be seen that a part extent of survey field No.684 falls inside the boundary of reserve forest and was notified as Papepalli East Reserve Forest through gazette notification Ootacamand, August 23rd, 1905. There are survey stones existing in the disputed land that confirm that Sy.No.684 partially has been certified as reserve forest. The gazette notification mentions that the boundary of reserve forest runs from south west corner of Sy.No.684 (partially inside reserve forest) of T. Sakibanda in a straight line to the Khandam stone on west side of Sy.No.682 north of its south west corner. Part of the land in Sy.No.684 is inside reserve forest. The assignees also approached the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty by filing suits OS.Nos.117 of 2021, 120 of 2014 and OS.No.116 of 2014, for grant of permanent injunction. OS.No.120 of 2015 was decreed on 05.12.2019. Part of the land in Sy.No.684 is inside reserve forest. The assignees also approached the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty by filing suits OS.Nos.117 of 2021, 120 of 2014 and OS.No.116 of 2014, for grant of permanent injunction. OS.No.120 of 2015 was decreed on 05.12.2019. The judgment and decree alternatively states that the possession of the plaintiffs have to be protected by way of permanent injunction; if plaintiffs are not eligible to get DKT pattas, concerned authorities are free to take steps for cancellation of DKT pattas and the same has become final. Reserve forest survey boundaries are existing in Sy.No.684. As the assignment pattas are granted to ineligible persons and in respect of the reserve forest land contrary to the provisions of BSO 15 para 18(1) the impugned notice was issued called for explanation. Petitioners instead of submitting explanation approached this Court. 8. Sri G. Elisha, learned counsel appearing for Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners on record, would submit that the respondent authorities are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners by misunderstanding the joint survey report wherein it is specifically stated that there is a discrepancy with regard to extent of land in Sy.No.684 of T. Sakibanda village as per the RSR and FMB needs to be corrected to match the RSR revenue record. But no notification is also issued with respect to the subject land as required under the provisions of Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act to declare land as reserve forest by issuing gazette notification. No evidence is placed with regard to the issuance of the gazette notifications under the provisions of the Act. Merely basing on the entries without notification said to be issued vide gazette notification and no specified boundaries are there and respondents cannot claim the land as reserve forest land contrary to the resurvey and settlement records wherein it is specifically stating that the land in Sy.No.684 is classified as Gayalu as per RSR and thereafter pattas were issued to the assignees. If the forest department has any claim over the said land, they ought to have filed the appeal before the Survey and Settlement for correction of entries and for replanting of Khandam boundary stones as per forest boundary and also seek a clarification from CCLA. If the forest department has any claim over the said land, they ought to have filed the appeal before the Survey and Settlement for correction of entries and for replanting of Khandam boundary stones as per forest boundary and also seek a clarification from CCLA. There is no specific finding with regard to the land dispute whether it is a reserve forest land or revenue land. As per the provisions of Section 4 of the Forest Act, whenever it has been decided to constitute any land a reserved forest, the State Government shall issue a notification in the Official Gazette declaring that it has been decided to constitute such land a reserved forest; specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of such land; and appointing an officer called the Forest Settlement-officer to inquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of any rights alleged to exist in favour of any person in or over any land comprised within such limits or in or over any forest-produce, and to deal with the same as provided in this Chapter; for the purpose of clause (b), it shall be sufficient to describe the limits of the forest by roads, rivers, ridges or other well-known or readily intelligible boundaries. Therefore, the Forest Settlement Officer is alone competent to decide the dispute as to the nature of the subject land whether it is a reserve forest land or gayalu. The respondent authorities without getting the dispute settled by the forest settlement officer based on the joint survey report coming to the conclusion that the subject land is a reserve forest land and issuance of the impugned notice for cancellation of the assignment pattas rightly granted in the year 2010 is illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 9. Learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and Forests while reiterating the averments of the counters and additional counters and memos would contend that the land assigned to the petitioners by DKT pattas are part of the reserve forest land as per the gazette notification Ootacamund August 23rd, 1905 and within the forest boundaries. The same is clearly demarcated in the joint survey conducted by the officials. Petitioners also participated in the said survey. The same is clearly demarcated in the joint survey conducted by the officials. Petitioners also participated in the said survey. The petitioners instead of maintaining status quo as ordered by this Court on 08.03.2021, under the guise of the status quo orders they ploughed the disputed land with tractors and proclainers and planted mango and coconut trees in the land in violation of the status quo orders passed by this court. The subject land in dispute is full of shrubs covered by grass and bushes. Learned Government Pleader for Forests referred to the photographs filed vide memo under USR.No.64969 of 2021 filed in WP.No.5418 of 2021 and stated that petitioners made encroachment of the land on the night of 26.03.2021 in the early morning of 27.03.2021 with tractors and proclainers, removed bushes and boulders. He also filed google earth image taken on 05.06.2019 & 23.04.2021 and also photos taken by the forest department on 05.12.2021, 02.12.2021 and 10.12.2021 and on 11.12.2021 and 13.12.2021. The petitioners are not law abiding citizens. They got various lands assigned during the year 2010 but not cultivated the land. When the forest officials claiming the land as forest land as per the reserve forest boundaries, the petitioners approached the civil court by filing injunction suits against the third parties and impleading the District Collector and Tahsdilar. Forest department is not made as a party respondent. Thereafter, filed WP.No.5418 of 2021 and this court ordered that status quo obtained as on that date shall be maintained in respect of the subject land on 08.03.2021. The impugned notices were issued as to why assignment should not be cancelled based on the joint survey conducted by the officials at the instance of the petitioners could not be said to be illegal without jurisdiction and contrary to the evidence available on record. It is merely a show cause notice issued by the Joint Collector based on the joint survey report and the evidence available on record, having come to the conclusion that the assignments were made contrary to BSO 15 para 18(1). The petitioners have to submit their explanation along with necessary documents and have to participate in the enquiry and the Joint Collector would take appropriate decision in pursuance of the impugned notice as per law. Such exercise cannot be prevented by filing WP.No.15134 of 2021. 10. The petitioners have to submit their explanation along with necessary documents and have to participate in the enquiry and the Joint Collector would take appropriate decision in pursuance of the impugned notice as per law. Such exercise cannot be prevented by filing WP.No.15134 of 2021. 10. This Court, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the material record, found that originally Ac.81.07 cents in Sy.No.684 of T. Sakibanda village, as per RSR, is found to be government land (Gayalu) but on inspection and survey the land extent Ac.22.57 cents in Sy.No.684 forms part of compartment No.721 in Papepalli East reserve forest of Chinnamandyam Mandal. As per the forest notification Ootacamand August 23rd, 1905, and the boundaries given in the said notification and the boundaries existing on the subject land, the show cause notices issued by the Joint-Collector for cancellation of the DKT pattas issued in favour of the petitioners could not be said to be not based on any evidence that the subject lands are reserve forest lands and assignments are made contrary to BSO 15 para 18(1). This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India generally would not undertake to enquire into the disputed questions of fact to find out the veracity of the facts and decide the lis. The petitioners approached this court without submitting explanations to the show cause notices to enable the Joint Collector to exercise his power conferred by the Statute. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court felt it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions giving liberty to the petitioners to submit their explanations to the show cause notices dated 17.06.2021, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on the petitioners submitting the explanations, the Joint Collector, is directed to consider the same as per law and pass appropriate orders after giving opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their case within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Petitioners are directed to cooperate with the Joint Collector. Pending the above said exercise, the status quo granted by this Court on 08.03.2021 shall remain in force. 12. The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions shall stand closed.