Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
Sirumalai Pazhathotta Vivasyigal Sangam, rep by its President Duraisamy Boopathy & Others
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary Department of Forest and Environment & Others
W.P.NOs.731, 2440 & 3259 of 2007, 8103, 10563 & 15149 of 2010 & M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2007, 1 to 3,3,4, 2 & 3 of 2010
Decided on : 13-07-2011
Forest Land - Challenge to Final Notification - Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, Section 16 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, particularly Section 16, and the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The court also referred to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, emphasizing the need to conserve forests and the ban on granting pattas for forest lands. The court highlighted the importance of maintaining forest cover to prevent environmental degradation and the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in this regard.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, an association and individuals, challenged the final notification declaring certain lands as reserve forest under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. The petitioners claimed possession and cultivation of the lands and sought to exclude them from the notification. The respondents contended that the lands were originally forest lands and had been notified as such after due process. The court noted the petitioners' attempt to challenge settled matters and their failure to establish legal rights over the lands.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners failed to prove any violation of procedure by the department in issuing the impugned notification. It emphasized the importance of conserving forest lands and preventing encroachment, in line with the directions of the Supreme Court. The court dismissed all the writ petitions, stating that the petitioners' attempt to challenge the final notification was improper and contrary to the efforts to maintain forest cover.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners had a legal right to challenge the final notification declaring certain lands as reserve forest under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. The court also considered the petitioners' attempt to obtain orders contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court and the importance of preventing encroachment on forest lands.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners failed to establish any legal or enforceable right over the forest lands and their attempt to challenge the settled matters was improper. It emphasized the need to adhere to the directions of the Supreme Court in conserving forest lands and preventing encroachment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the writ petitions, refraining from ordering exemplary costs due to the petitioners being guided by their counsel. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
1. In this batch of writ petitions, the first three writ petitions were filed in the year 2007 and the last three writ petitions were filed in the year 2010. The petitioner in W.P.No.731 of 2007 is an Association of Sirumalai Pazhathotta Vivasayigal Sangam, Velanpannai. It is claimed that the said association is a registered association with registration No.45/2004 and that it has a total membership of 635 persons. The members are the residents of Thenmalai, Thalai Kadai, Chinna Kadai, Rotti Kadu, Thavadukku Kadai and other small hamlets under the foothill of Sirumalai coming under the Dindigul Taluk.
2. In that writ petition, the petitioner association seeks to challenge an order of the first respondent State dated 02.11.2006 and seeks to set aside the same and also to further forbear the respondents from notifying the lands in survey numbers contained in the proceedings of the Forest Settlement Officer, Dindigul, dated 24.3.2006 as reserve forest till resettlement proceedings were completed by the second respondent, i.e., Revenue Department or a rehabilitation scheme framed by the Central Empowerment Committee constituted by the Supreme Court.
3. The impugned proceedings, dated 2.11.2006 is a letter addressed to the petitioner association by the State Government wherein they had referred to an order passed by the Madurai Bench of this High Court in W.P.(MD)No.5506 of 2006, dated 13.9.2006. In that order, this court had directed the State Government to consider the request of the petitioner association for the grant of patta based on the report filed by the District Forest Officer, Dindigul, dated 1.9.2006 within a time frame. In the impugned order in paragraphs 3 to 6, it was stated as follows:
"3. Your sangam has sent representation dated 24.08.2006 addressed to the District Forest Officer, Dindigul requesting for exclusion of the lands they have encroached upon from the proposed notification as Reserve Forest under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act.
4. The Report of the District Forest Officer, Dindigul vide Rec.No.6650/2006, dt. 1.9.2006 and the report sent by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest vide Ref.No.WR3/42046/2006, dated 25.10.2006 were considered by the Government. 149 petitions from the encroachers of Sirumalai West Block Reserve Land areas have been received by the District Forest Officer requesting for exclusion of their lands from the proposed notification under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act.
5. The District Forest Officer has stated that he has carefully considered the claims of the petitioners and stated that as per the existing Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.No.202/95 in I.A.No.418 no patta should be granted in any forest lands and encroachment in forest land should not be regularized. These are the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the Government of Tamil Nadu.
6. Keeping all these things in mind, the Government have examined carefully the request of the said Sangam dt.24.08.2006 and the report of the District Forest Officer, Dindigul Division dated 1.9.2006 and reject the request of the petitioners of the Sirumalai Vivasayigal Sangam."
4. Even though the said order came to be passed pursuant to the directions issued by the Madurai Bench of this court, the petitioner association deliberately filed the writ petition before the Principal Bench for reasons best known to them. It has been done despite statutory requirements that such writ petition arising out of 13 revenue district coming under the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench has to be heard only by the Madurai Bench. Further the entire cause of action arose within the districts coming under the jurisdiction of Madurai Bench. However, the said writ petition was admitted on 26.4.2007. Pending the writ petition, this court had granted a status quo order to be maintained as on 26.4.2007. Subsequently, the very same petitioner association filed
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
