High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM
The Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director, Project Tiger, Mundanthurai and Another - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NOS.1770, 2208, 4318, 4319, 4320 & 5093 OF 1995
Decided On : 27 December 2002
Forest Act - Land Dispute - Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 - Section 16 - Summary: The judgment addresses a long-standing land dispute under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. The court discusses the rights of the petitioner company, the actions of the government, and the applicability of various provisions of the Forest Act and Wildlife Protection Act. The court concludes that the government cannot enforce certain provisions without a formal declaration under Section 16 of the Forest Act. The court also dismisses a petition challenging the constitutionality of certain sections of the Forest Act. The judgment emphasizes the need for proper statutory backing and prompt compliance with the Acts' requirements.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a company, holds a lease for cultivating land, part of which is subject to a long-standing dispute under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. The government has taken various actions alleging violations by the petitioner, including the collection of toll, exercising powers under the Forest Act, and seizing firewood.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the government cannot enforce certain provisions of the Forest Act without a formal declaration under Section 16. The court dismisses a petition challenging the constitutionality of certain sections of the Forest Act. The court emphasizes the need for proper statutory backing and prompt compliance with the Acts' requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The government cannot enforce certain provisions of the Forest Act without a formal declaration under Section 16. The court dismisses a petition challenging the constitutionality of certain sections of the Forest Act. The judgment emphasizes the need for proper statutory backing and prompt compliance with the Acts' requirements.
Final Decision: The court allows one petition, dismisses others, and emphasizes the need for proper statutory backing and prompt compliance with the Acts' requirements.
The Subject matter of these writ petitions is long pending with a chequered history and will probably continue to be so for some more time in view of the pendency of the proceedings before the statutory authorities at various stages under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, hereinafter described as "the Forest Act".
2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. The land in question comprises an extent of 3388.78 acres, which was part of Singampatti Zamin. By lease deed dated 12.2.1989 the Zamin granted the right to occupy in favour of the petitioner company for the purpose of cultivating Coffee, Tea, Coco, Sincona, Cardamom, pepper, rubber and other products other than timber trees for a period of 99 years. With the coming into f`orce of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and conversion of ryotwari) Act, hereinafter called Act 26 of 1948, the Board of Revenue by is order dated 13.8.1958 declared that the Company was not entitled to any rights or to remain in possession after 19.2.1952. The Board in exercise its power under Section 19-A of the said Act, directed that the lessee/petitioner shall remain in possession of the entire lease area for the rest of the lease period subject to all the conditions of lease. Certain additional terms and conditions were subsequently added alleged to be in public interest, as follows:-
"(i) The company shall not clear any portion of the catchment area of Kusanguli measuring 970 acres at the south east corner the lease area within the boundaries indicated by thick red line in sketch attached, as the clear felling of this area will be detrimental to forest conservancy and will also lead to soil erosion in the catchment area of the Manimuthar River;
(ii) the said company shall, in the rest of the area leased out to it, arrange to clothe rapidly with vegetations any extent cleared by it and adopt and maintain effective measures for the prevention of soil erosion; and
(iii) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the lease deed dated 12.2.1989, as subsequently amended, if the Company violates any of the terms and conditions of the lease and does not conform to the conditions (i) and (ii) specified above, the lease is liable to be cancelled by the State Government and the State Government may re-enter and take possession of the entire lease area and the Company will not be entitled to any compensation whatsoever thereof."
3. In the mean time, the Government also invoked its power under the Forest Act and issued a proclamation under Section 6 expressing its intention to declare the area as reserved forest. The petitioners filed a Claim petition as provided under the Act and claimed rights of occupancy, ownership and other rights. The Forest Settlement Officer split the claim into two separate petitions namely, Claim No.5 as regards the claim of right of occupancy and Claim No.6 relating to the other rights such as right of way, etc. The Forest Settlement Officer allowed the claim of right of occupancy as claimed by the petitioner and excluded the land from the limits of the proposed reserved Forest. The Government filed an appeal. The learned District Judge, Tirunelveli, allowed the appeal and remitted the proceedings to the Forest Settlement Officer on the ground that the Department did not have the opportunity for filing their counter statement. Both sides now represent that the proceedings are still pending before the Forest Settlement Officer. It is also admitted by the respondents that in view of the pendency of the proceedings on the Claim petition filed by the petitioners, no notification has been issued under Section 16 of the Forest Act declaring the forest as reserved forest.
4. As stated earlier, the Board of Revenue by order dated 13.8.1958, under Section 19-A of Act 26 of 1948, recognised the right of the Company to remain in possession of the land till the end of the lease period subject to the conditions of lease and had also imposed certain othe
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.