Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Mad) 289

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
M/s. Prabha Enterprises Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, Vivekanandan (Died), Salem District & Others – Appellant
Versus
The District Forest Officer, District Forest Office, Salem & Another – Respondent
C.M.S.A.No. 27 of 2018 & C.M.P.No. 22171 & 22173 of 2018
Decided On : 26-03-2021

Appearing Advocates:
For the Appellants :P. Thiagarajan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: M. Elumalai, Additional Government Pleader.

POINT OF LAW: When Right to Life is guaranteed to the citizen of our great Nation, then protection of Environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife are of paramount importance and without protecting the same, the Government cannot protect the peaceful living of the citizen in the country. Thus, the Right to Life and protection of environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife are integral part and peaceful happy life depends on the protection of these aspects and therefore, the authorities competent are bound to ensure that the fundamental duty enshrined under the Constitution is brought to the notice of the citizen, who all are indulging in such illegal practices of causing damage to the forests, water body and to the wildlife.

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 21, 51 – Tamil Nadu Forest Act – Sections 8, 16, 17, 10, 68, 33 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – Madras Forest Act – Section 4 – Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 9 – Leasehold Rights – Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in passed an order in the appeal filed under Section 10(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act without considering the petition, as contemplated in the said Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act 1882, by holding that the Forest Settlement Officer has no jurisdiction etc – Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in came to a conclusion on the basis of the claimant averments only without perusing the Forest Department Averments and records and without give any finding on the issue, especially in the statutory appeal – Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in allowing the appeal stating that the claimant was not filed it's objection within stipulated time, without considering the relevant provision of Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act 1882, which provides right to the claimant till the issuance of notification under Section 16 of the Act – Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in set-aside the order of Forest Settlement Officer while the claimant was issued with License for mining under Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 by the State Government and renewal of license also been pending consideration of State Government and without verifying any notifications under Section 33 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and any proceedings under Section 68-A of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act – Whether Lower Appellate Court is right in passing order before the compliance of the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal –
Finding of the Court: Elephants are dying day-in and day-out in Forest areas. – Though some actions are initiated by the Forest Department and other Department officials, certainly, it is insufficient to protect the well being of the wildlife. – Responsibility and accountability must be fixed on the forest officials and in the event of such instances, the Chief Conservator of Forests and the competent authority are bound to institute action against the subordinate officials and the field level officials, who all are responsible and accountable for the protection of natural environment and forest lands wild life including the water bodies inside the forest areas. Contrarily, these Forest officials are visibly colluding with many private sectors for running resorts, hotels, by allowing them to enter into the forest area without any permission. – All such illegalities, if not dealt with properly, then the citizen of this great Nation is denied the Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as interpreted by the Constitutional Courts, which includes healthy and happy life. – Right to life is not mere life. Life with dignity and health are integral. – Forest Department is expected to act swiftly, so as to ensure the illegalities are minimized and controlled to the expected level for improving the nature's environment and Forest land in the State. – Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is directed to constitute Flying Squads and Special teams in a strategical areas in the forest across the State of Tamil Nadu to monitor the functioning of Forest officials at all levels and to control the forests offences and illegalities. – Such flying squad or special teams must be rotated, so as to ensure that the officials deputed to flying squad are not allowed to acquaint with the other field level forest officials. – Special flying squad must be constituted with the men of integrity and they must directly report to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, who in turn, shall monitor the activities at the State level by utilizing the digital technology. – Fair and Decreetal order passed in C.M.A., reversing the order of the Forest Settlement Officer, passed in F.S.C. stands confirmed –
Result: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal Dismissed.

JUDGMENT :-

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., Read with Section 10(2) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, against the judgment and decree made in C.M.A.No.61/2008 on the file of the II Additional District Judge at Salem dated 08.01.2018, reversing the order passed by Forest Settlement Officer, Attur, in F.S.C.No.839/2002 dated 27.06.2002, seeking set aside the same.)

The Fair and Decreetal order passed in C.M.A.No.61 of 2008 dated 08.01.2018, reversing the order of the Forest Settlement Officer, Attur, passed in F.S.C.No.839 of 2002 dated 27.06.2002 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal.

2. The appellant claims leasehold rights over the property bearing S.No.356 of Keeripatti Village, Attur Taluk, Salem District to an extent of 19.24.0 Hectares (47.52 Acres) from the Government. The appellant states that on 12.05.1954, the Tamil Nadu State Government issued G.O.Ms.324 under Section 4 of the Madras Forest Act (Madras Act V of 1882) notifies that it is proposed to constitute as “Reserved Forest” under the said Act. In the said notification, the properties of the Salem District was proposed to be reserved forest in two blocks. The property claimed by the appellant comes under Naraikinaru North Block No.II. On 19.05.1955, Proclamation under Section 6 of Forest Act has been issued. The Claim Petitions were invited on or before 18.08.1955. However, the enquiry was not completed and the declaration under Section 16 of the Forest Act also was not issued. On 04.10.1976, the State of Tamil Nadu had issued a G.O.Ms.1334, Industries, granting leasehold rights in favour of the appellant for 20 years till 25.03.1997 to an extent of 6.29.0 Hectares (18.50 acres). On 26.03.1977, the lease deed was entered into an extent of 18.50 acres for 20 years. On 21.03.1996, before expiry of the the leasehold right, the appellant submitted an application for renewal of lease. Another application was filed, seeking leasehold right to an extent of 12.95.0 hectares for the purpose of mining. On 08.10.1998, the Forest Range Officer had issued a show cause notice, asking the appellant to submit explanations, why the quarry operations should not be stopped. On 07.12.1998, the appellant submitted an application. On 08.12.1998, the District Collector, Salem, had intimated to the appellant that the appellant is alleged to continue the mining operation. During the year 1999, the Forest officials interfered with the transporting the minerals by the appellant. The appellant filed W.P.No.19826 of 1998 and the writ petition ended not in favour of the appellant. The appellant filed W.A.No.611 of 1999 and an interim order was granted. On 25.08.1999, the Chief Conservator of Forest recommended to the State Government to proceed further based on the inspection conducted in the year 1991 to declare the said 2222 acres of land under Section 16 of the Forest Act. On 07.10.1999, Review Application No.68 of 1999 was filed by the appellant and the land at that point of time was not declared as Forest Land. The interim order was also vacated thereafter in the year 2002. The Forest Settlement Officer conducted enquiry under Sections 8 and 10 of the Forest Act. On 27.06.2002, the Forest Settlement Officer passed an order in Case.No.839 of 2002. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 09.08.2007 in W.A.No.611 of 1999, directing the authorities to dispose of the renewal application. Meanwhile, the Forest Department has filed appeal in C.M.A.No.61 of 2008, challenging the order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer. The District Collector, Salem, permitted the appellant to continue mine and transport until the renewal application filed by the appellant was disposed of. Thereafter, on 08.01.2018, the C.M.A.No.61 f 2008 was disposed of in favour of the District Forest Officer and challenging the said order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document