The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 and the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 to the petitioners' lands, emphasizing the need to prevent deforestation and adhere to laws for preserving the ecological balance.

Elipe Dharma Rao, J.

The petitioners are the joint owners of lands in S.No.236/8A etc. of Masinagudi village, Ootacamund Taluk, Nilgiris District, in an extent of 883.68 acres, named as Singara Estate. The major portion of the said lands is being used to raise coffee plantations besides cultivating pepper plantation, fruit orchards etc. The petitioners have planted shade trees for the purpose of the coffee plantations and rearing the same to provide shade for the coffee plants. While so, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a Notification dated 10. 1981, which was published in the Nilgiris District Gazette No.9 at Page No.32, under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949, as amended by Act 68 of 1979, declaring that the private forests specified in the schedule appended thereto are to be forests for the purpose of the said Acts. The schedule appended to the said Notification contains the properties now belong jointly to the petitioners. This notification is impugned by the petitioners, by filing W.P.No.17943 of 1990 before this Court.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the lands are ryotwari patta lands, having been acquired by them under a Will left by the father of the first petitioner and the grand father of the other petitioners and that pattas have also been granted for these lands as early as in 1885 to the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners, which had later been transferred and issued in the names of all the petitioners.

.3. The petitioners further state that it is essential that the fully grown shade trees, which they have grown for providing shade to the coffee plantations, which get silviculturally matured, to be removed from time to time as otherwise they would not only cease to serve the purpose for which they are planted but would also cause danger and havoc to the coffee plantations, if they fall by themselves. The petitioners would further submit that the declaration of their lands as forest is absolutely illegal and further submit that no notice or opportunity was given by the second respondent before issuing the impugned notification.

4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit wherein they have admitted that the lands are ryotwari patta lands and belongs to the father of the first petitioner. They would further submit that to preserve the private forest wealth and to prevent the indiscriminate destruction of private forest and interference with customary and prescriptive rights therein, the Government of Tamil Nadu had enacted the Preservation of Private Forests Act, which is not prohibitory in nature but only preventive in nature and therefore, the petitioners can apply to the competitive authorities for permission to cut and remove the trees and there is absolutely no denial of any rights of the petitioners to carry out any improvements which would not amount to denude the forest and that the provisions of the Act only stipulate certain guidelines and restrictions to regulate the indiscriminate cutting of the trees in a private forest. They have also stated that all the formalities with regard to the notifications were dealt with by the father of the first petitioner Mr.Nathamal Vaid and it is not mandatory on the part of the respondents to issue any prior notice to the petitioners before the notification and the notification was issued only as per the provisions of the Act and therefore the notification is absolutely valid and within the jurisdiction of the respondents.

5. The respondents would further submit that there is nothing contrary in the Act as alleged by the petitioner and the notification issued by the Collector of the District under Section (iii) will apply only to the private patta lands owned by private individuals; that the petitioners can get permission from the Committee to cut the trees which are silviculturally matured and obtaining such permission will not amount to violation of any fundamental rights as alleged; that the purpose and object