Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 3835
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, R. VIJAYAKUMAR, JJ.
P. Gopi – Appellant
Versus
The District Forest Officer, Dindigul – Respondent
W.A. (MD) No. 133 of 2022, C.M.P. (MD) Nos. 1303, 1304 of 2022
Decided On : 14-12-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V.R. Venkatesan.
For the Respondent: A. Baskaran.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act to private patta lands, emphasizing the requirement of previous permission from the Hill Area Committee under Section 3(1) of the Act and the significance of G.O.Ms.No. 334, Environment and Forests Department dated 16.11.1998.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act - Applicability to Private Patta Land - Section 3(1) of the Act - G.O.Ms.No. 334, Environment and Forests Department dated 16.11.1998 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Tamil Nadu Act XVII of 1955, Section 3(1), Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Rules, 1957 - The court discussed the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act to private patta lands, emphasizing the requirement of previous permission from the Hill Area Committee under Section 3(1) of the Act and the rules. The court also highlighted the significance of G.O.Ms.No. 334, Environment and Forests Department dated 16.11.1998, which included Sirumalai in the schedule of the Act, thereby making it applicable to the disputed land.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a writ petitioner, challenged an order directing him to seek permission from the Hill Area Committee for cutting and removing trees from his private patta land. The appellant argued that the land was not forest land and hence, the Act was not applicable to him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act was applicable to the private patta land in question, emphasizing the requirement of previous permission from the Hill Area Committee under Section 3(1) of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of the Act to the private patta land and the requirement of seeking permission from the Hill Area Committee for tree cutting and removal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act applied to the private patta land as per Section 3(1) and the rules, and the inclusion of Sirumalai in the schedule of the Act through G.O.Ms.No. 334, Environment and Forests Department dated 16.11.1998, made it legally binding on the disputed land.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ appeal, confirming the order directing the appellant to seek permission from the Hill Area Committee for tree cutting and removal.
JUDGMENT :
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 20.11.2019 passed in WP(MD) No. 22133 of 2017.
1. The writ petitioner is the appellant.
2. The present writ appeal has been filed challenging an order of the learned Single Judge who had confirmed the order passed by the first respondent herein under which the petitioner was to directed to approach the Hill Area Committee seeking previous permission of the said Committee for cutting and removing of the trees in Survey No. 753/1B, Sirumalai Village, Dindigul District.
3. According to the appellant, he and his wife had purchased an extent of 65 acres and 7 cents in the above said survey number from one Ponnambala Nadar under a registered sale deed dated 06.12.1999. The said survey number has been declared as Ryoti land by an order of this Court in W.P.No. 3000 of 1997 dated 22.02.1980 and W.P.No. 4139 of 1980, dated 09.09.1986. The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government (Forest and Fisheries Department) by his communication dated 01.09.1987 has also declared that the said survey number is a Ryoti land.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner had contended that the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued G.O.Ms.No. 15, Environment and Forests Department dated 04.02.2010 declaring certain survey numbers as reserved forest in Sirumalai West Forest Block. In the said Government Order, the survey number in dispute, namely Survey No. 753/1 or 753/1B is not included. Hence, it is clear that the above said survey numbers are not forest land. The learned counsel had further contended that when the lands in dispute are not forest lands, Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu Act XVII of 1955) is not applicable to him and hence, the order passed by the first respondent herein directing the petitioner to approach the Hill Area Committee seeking their previous permission for cutting and removing of the trees is not applicable to him.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner had further contended that G.O.Ms.No. 334, Environment and Forests Department dated 16.11.1998 is not applicable to him since it is a Ryoti land and inclusion of Sirumalai as hill station by the State Government would not take away the rights of the writ petitioner to cut and remove the trees from his patta land. The only legal obligation on the part of the writ petitioner is to obtain Form-II permit under Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968. The said Form-II is only for movement of timber and hence, the prior permission for cutting and removing the trees under Tamil Nadu Act XVII of 1955 is not applicable to him.
6. The learned counsel had further contended that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the difference between Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968 and Tamil Nadu Act XVII of 1955 and has erroneously arrived at a decision that the petitioner has to obtain prior permission from the authorities under Tamil Nadu Act XVII of 1955. Since G.O.Ms.No. 334, Environment and Forests Department dated 16.11.1998 does not include the private patta lands of the petitioner, the question of challenging the same does not arise. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ appeal.
7. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had contended that Tamil Nadu Act XVII of 1955 is applicable to the petitioner's case. Even assuming that Survey No. 753/1B is a private patta land, even then the previous permission of the authorities are mandatory under the said Act. The orders passed in W.P.No. 3000 of 1977 and W.P.No. 4139 of 1980 will not come to rescue of the petitioner, in view of the fact that those judgments would only relate to the ownership of the survey number in dispute.
8. The learned Additional Government Pleader had further contended that after orders were passed in those writ petitions in the year 1980 and 1986, G.O.Ms.No. 334, Environment and Forests Depart
