The provisions of the Act are not violative of any of the Constitutional provisions nor do they suffer from any other infirmities and the intention of the legislation is to prevent indiscriminate felling of trees in private forests to prevent destruction thereof and uphold the objective of the National Forest Policy.

T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.

The common issue raised in these cases is the validity of the notification issued by the District Collector, Kanyakumari, declaring the lands owned by the appellants/petitioners as “Private Forests” under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

2. In this batch, there are Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions. The Writ Appeals are directed against the common order dated 05.04.2002 in W.P.No.7275, 7276 of 1985 etc., and fresh Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners which were tagged along with the Writ Appeals as the issue involved were more or less identical.

3. The Writ Petitions were dismissed upholding the validity of the Act and the notifications issued under it, declaring the lands of the Appellants/Petitioners as “Private Forests”. At the commencement of the arguments the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that they are not questioning the Constitutional validity of the Act, but confine their challenge to the applicability of the provisions of the Act to the lands owned by the clients and the validity of the notifications declaring those lands to be “Private Forests” under the Act.

4. We may segregate the batch of cases into two. The first being the appeals filed against the common order dated 05.04.2002 dismissing the Writ Petitions, and the second fresh Writ Petitions, which were filed subsequently. With the consent of parties, W.A.Nos.1336 & 1337 of 2002 are taken as a lead cases.

5. The appellants are the Kanyakumari District Planters Association and other plantation owners. W.A.Nos.1336 of 2002 is directed against the dismissal of W.P.No.7275 of 1985, which was filed challenging the notifications dated 16.09.1980 and 31.12.1982; W.A.No.1337 of 2002, has been filed against the order in W.P.No.7276 of 1985, challenging the validity of Sections 1(2)(iii), 2(aa), 3 and 6 of the Act.

6. By notification dated 31.07.1980, the District Collector in exercise of his powers under Section 1(2)(iii) of the Act (extended to Kanyakumari District by Act 28 of 1979) declared the appellants' lands to be Private Forests. Similar notification dated 16.02.1982, was issued in respect of other lands, declaring them as 'Private Forests'. These notifications were impugned in the Writ Petitions.

7. Two other Writ Petitions had been filed being W.P.Nos.14322 & 14323 of 1988, by three individuals challenging the notification, dated 04.10.1979, these Writ Petitions were also dismissed by the common impugned order and no appeals have been preferred against the dismissal of those Writ Petitions.

8. Initially the Writ Petitions namely W.P.Nos.7275 & 7276 of 1985, were allowed by order dated 12.12.1995, setting aside the notifications dated 31.07.1980 and 16.02.1982, and remanding the matter to the District Collector for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Challenging the said order, the respondents/State preferred Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.930 & 957 of 1996, which were allowed by the Division Bench by order dated 10.08.2001, with direction that the the Writ Petitions be heard afresh, pursuant to which those two Writ Petitions along with other Writ Petitions were heard and were dismissed by common order dated 05.04.2002, which is impugned in the Appeals.

Contentions of the Appellants before the Writ Court:-

9. It was contended that the Act was enacted to prevent indiscriminate destruction of Private Forests and interference with customary and prescriptive rights therein and for certain other purposes and the said enactment will not apply to plantations as a plantations by its very nature is developed by contribution of human efforts, skill and money adopting agricultural and cultivation practice. It was contended that the sine qua non for application of the provisions of the Private Forests Act, is existence of a forest. It was submitted that Section 2(aa), which defines 'Forest' is an inclusive definition and Forest as such has not