JUDGMENT : R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. 1. Heard Smt. Almas Begum Mohammed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned G.P. for Forests appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. Devi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent. 2. These writ appeals are being disposed of by way of a common order, as they are arose out of a common order passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 19256 and 2339 of 2023. The parties to the present litigation are being referred to as they are arrayed in W.A. No. 296 of 2024. 3. The 5th respondent had set up and was running a saw mill in an extent of Acs.0.97 cents in R.S. No. 4/2 of Kalavalapalli Village, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District, from the year 2013 onwards. The appellant herein had filed O.S. No. 275 of 2017 before the Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, against the 5th respondent for evicting the 5th respondent from the said property and for payment of rental arrears. It is the case of the appellant that he had purchased the aforesaid land from the proprietor of the 5th respondent under a registered deed of sale dated 08.10.2012. It was the case of the appellant that the 5th respondent having obtained the property on oral lease, was seeking to knock away the property by claiming to be the owner and as such required to be evicted from the land. This suit is still pending before the trial Court. 4. The appellant also moved O.S. No. 30 of 2018 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nidadavole, seeking permanent injunction restraining the 5th respondent from interfering with the property of the appellant. This suit came to be dismissed on 09.11.2021. While the above litigations were pending, the District Forest Officer, Eluru Forest Division, had renewed the licence given to the 5th respondent, for running a saw mill. 5. This renewal of licence was challenged, by the appellant, by way of W.P. No. 2380 of 2022. This writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.10.2022. Subsequently, the appellant again moved W.P. No. 2339 of 2023 challenging the inaction of the District Forest Officer in suspending the licence granted to the 5th respondent. 5. This renewal of licence was challenged, by the appellant, by way of W.P. No. 2380 of 2022. This writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.10.2022. Subsequently, the appellant again moved W.P. No. 2339 of 2023 challenging the inaction of the District Forest Officer in suspending the licence granted to the 5th respondent. This Court passed an interim direction on 01.02.2023 directing the District Forest Officer to consider the representation of the appellant dated 03.01.2023 and pass a speaking order on the question whether the licence given to the 5th respondent has to be suspended or not. 6. The Forest Range Officer, in compliance of the above order, conducted an enquiry on 07.02.2023 and submitted a report stating that the 5th respondent had not produced relevant documents relating to the property. On this basis, the District Forest Officer refused to renew the licence issued in favour of the 5th respondent. Aggrieved by this order, the 5th respondent moved an appeal before the Chief Forest Officer, Rajamahendravaram Circle. This appeal was dismissed on 06.07.2023. Aggrieved by the said order, the 5th respondent moved W.P. No. 19256 of 2023. 7. A learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering the submissions made in both the cases, was pleased to allow W.P. No. 19256 of 2023 setting aside the order of the Chief Forest Officer, dated 06.07.2023 with a further direction to the official respondents to renew the licence of the 5th respondent as and when an application is filed for such purpose. This order was passed on the ground that the 5th respondent had been running a saw mill in accordance with the Rules and there was no ground to the authority to refuse the renewal of licence of the existing saw mill. 8. Aggrieved by the order allowing W.P. No. 19256 of 2023 and dismissing W.P. No. 2339 of 2023, the appellant herein moved these two appeals. 9. Smt. Almas Begum Mohammed, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that there can be no renewal of licence given to the 5th respondent in as much as he does not have any document of title or deed of lease, which is one of the mandatory documents required under Rule 4 of the A.P. Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Rules 2018. She would further submit that in the absence of title deed or lease deed no permission can be granted nor any renewal can be given. She would further submit that the mere fact that the 5th respondent was also running a saw mill on the land does not entitle the 5threspondent for renewal without necessary documents of title, being placed before the authorities. 10. Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. Devi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent would submit that the title of the 5th respondent can be traced to the deed of settlement executed by the wife of the proprietor of the 5th respondent in his favour, in the year 2011 and as such the contention that appropriate documents of title have not been produced before the official respondents is incorrect and the orders of refusal of renewal and subsequent dismissal of appeal against the said order are not in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules. 11. A perusal of the record placed before this Court including the pleadings in O.S. No. 275 of 2017, before the Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, would reveal that the proprietor of the 5th respondent had obtained title over the disputed land by way of a deed of settlement executed by his wife in his favour in the year 2011. Subsequently, there is a registered deed of sale under which the proprietor of the 5th respondent is said to have sold the land to the appellant. On the basis of this document, the appellant moved the Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur by way of O.S. No. 275 of 2017 to evict the 5th respondent on the ground that the 5th respondent was his tenant whose tenancy has expired and who was trying to knock away the land of the appellant. The proprietor of the 5th respondent, in his written statement, did not deny the execution of the document. As such it is contended that he had obtained certain financial assistance from the appellant and had executed certain documents as security for the said loan. It is further contended that these signed documents were misused by the appellant for creation of a deed of sale. As such it is contended that he had obtained certain financial assistance from the appellant and had executed certain documents as security for the said loan. It is further contended that these signed documents were misused by the appellant for creation of a deed of sale. The question of whether the version of the appellant is correct or the version of the proprietor of the 5th respondent is correct is a matter to be decided by the Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur. 12. However, the fact remains that there is a registered deed of sale in existence and the same has not been assailed by the proprietor of the 5th respondent. The question of whether the said deed of sale requires to be assailed or not or whether the said deed of sale has to be ignored, is also a matter to be determined by the Senior Civil Judger as the said issue would arise in O.S. No. 275 of 2017. 13. The issue before this Court is whether the 5th respondent is entitled for renewal of licence to run the saw mill in the disputed land. The conditions of such renewal are set out in the Rules and more specifically Rule 4 of the Rules. This Rule stipulates that the applicant seeking grant of licence would have to produce either the title deed of the land in which the saw mill is to be established, or a deed of lease granting possession of the land to the applicant or a statement that the actual owner of the land would be leasing out the land in favour of the applicant. In the present case, the official respondents have taken the stand that none of the aforesaid documents have been produced by the 5th respondent. In the circumstances, the finding of the official respondents and the decision on the basis of such finding cannot be objected. 14. The mere fact that the 5th respondent was earlier running a saw mill in the disputed land would not, in any manner, entitle the 5th respondent for renewal of licence unless necessary documents of title/deed of lease is produced before the authorities. As no such documents are being placed before the authorities, the refusal to renew the licence cannot be faulted. 15. Accordingly, these writ appeals are allowed setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. As no such documents are being placed before the authorities, the refusal to renew the licence cannot be faulted. 15. Accordingly, these writ appeals are allowed setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. However, it is left open for the 5th respondent to demonstrate title over the land or produce a deed of title or lease before the official respondents. Needless to say, any renewal of licence on the basis of any such document would be granted only after hearing the appellant. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.