Oral Order:

1. Heard Sri K. Ranga Srinivas, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Venkata Durga Rao Anantha, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri S. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporations, Ms. D. Nagachandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning and Sri Mortha Srinu Babu learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development.

2. Sri S. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporations has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Guntur, dated 09.03.2026 and Ms. D. Nagachandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Finance, dated 09.03.2026. Copies of both Written Instructions are also furnished to the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner. The same are taken on record.

3. The Written Instructions indicates that the bills have been uploaded on to the CFMS Portal on 04.03.2026.

4. Having regard to the fact that the amount due to the Writ Petitioner is meager, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this Writ Petition at the admission stage, without going into merits of the case, directing the Official Respondents to complete the entire administrative process, both Inter- departmental and Intra-departmental by way of mutual cooperation and coordinaton, within a period of two weeks from today and transfer the amount to the account of the Writ Petitioner within four weeks thereafter. Writ Petitioner is directed to submit the bank account details to the competent authority within one week from today for effecting such transfer. The transfer shall be made well before 31.03.2026 since the amount is meager. Any default or lapses in this regard on the part of the Official Respondents, shall be seriously viewed by this Court.

5. The requirement of Officials to act in cooperation and coordination as observed above, had been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Elizabeth Jacob vs. District Collector, Idukki and Others : (2008) 15 SCC 166 in Para Nos.19 & 20 as under :

                  “19. This case demonstrates, though in a very limited manner, the lack of cooperation and coordination between government departments. All departments should function in the interest of the public and for public good. Merely because a particular department or an authority functions under a particular statute, it does not follow that they should or could ignore the provisions of other statutes. Interdepartmental cooperation and coordination is vital for the smooth and successful functioning of the Government. But unfortunately there is thriving interdepartmental rivalries and a mutual non- caring attitude towards the functioning of other departments and enforcement of other statutes. Non-cooperation between the Revenue Department and the Forest Department, the Revenue Department and the Mines and Minerals Department, the Forest Department and the Mines and Minerals Department, are too well known. Unless immediate and serious steps are taken for improving the coordination, cooperation and understanding among various departments, offenders will escape, violators will walk away, national resources will be swindled, and public interest will suffer. Be that as it may.

                  20. This is a simple case where the Revenue Department and the Forest Department could have sorted out the issue as to whether the land was forest land or non-forest government poramboke. They had all the time between 1992 and 1998. The revenue records showed the land as government poramboke, that is, non-forest land. The Forest Department's claim that it is forest land is not supported by any acceptable evidence. We fail to understand why the Forest Department cannot examine the revenue registers from time to time and take action when they came across any forest land being shown otherwise. Similarly, the Revenue Department and the Forest Department can sort out and demarcate what is forest land and what is non-forest government land. As noticed above, the Forest Department for the first time attempted to plant some trees in the land only in 1992 even though it knew that it was shown as government poramboke land in the revenue records and not as forest land. Similarly, even though the Revenue Department knew that the Forest Department was attempting to plant trees in 1992 and claim that it was forest land, it chose to put up the land for auction-sale in 1998, without sorting out whether the land was forest land or not, and sold the land and recovered Rs 3,65,500 from an innocent citizen. Because of the misunderstanding and non-cooperation between the two departments, a citizen who bona fide participated in a public auction and parted with a large amount of money is made to run from pillar to post. To add to her woes, she has been unnecessarily directed to approach the civil court and prove the negative.”

6. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.

7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.