The Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act applies to lands exceeding 2 hectares in contiguous area, and ignorance of prior notifications does not warrant exemption from the Act.

ORDER :

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to letter No. 1326/FR.12/2018-22 dated 16.11.2023 issued by the second respondent/the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Environment, Climate Change, and Forest (FR.12) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 and to direct the first ad second respondents to consider the status report dated 08.09.2023 filed by the third respondent, the Chairman, District Committee constituted under TNPPF Act, Office of District Collector, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District and pass orders exempting the lands in Old S.No. 175/73, New S.No. 534/1 and Old S.No.175/70, New S.No. 534/3 measuring an extent of 1.70 acres and 1.30 acres at Munnanad Village, Nilgiris District and consequently declare that the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949 is not applicable to the above lands. It had been contended that patta had also been granted under new patta No.313 for the aforementioned land.

2. The Writ Petitioner further stated that the property had been assigned to him by proceeding dated 24.07.1972 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudalur. After the statutory period of 10 years, he had been granted Ryotwari patta bearing No. 493 by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Gudalur and his name had been incorporated in the Revenue Registers. Thereafter, a new patta No.313 had been assigned and the land had been recorded as patta land in the revenue records, chitta, A-Register, Adangal and F.M.B. It had been further contended that by a Gazettee Notification dated 15.11.1991, issued under Section 2(1)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949, five villages of Udhagamandalam Taluk and 10 villages of Gudalur and Pandalur Taluk in Nilgiri District were declared as private forest. The property of the petitioner was also brought under the ambit of the Act by the said notification. It had been claimed that this notification came to the knowledge of the petitioner only in the year 2009 when the District Collector issued a letter dated 21.08.2009 addressed to the District Registrar to verify whether the lands sought to be registered under any instrument had been declared and notified as private forest and if so declared then the written permission of the District Committee should be produced by the land owner who intends to sell the land.

3. The petitioner then filed W.P.No. 5825 of 2010 to declare the notification dated 15.11.1991 and the subsequent circular issued by the District Collector as illegal and ab initio void. The Writ Petition was dismissed by an order dated 12.07.2011. The petitioner then filed W.A.No. 2154 of 2011. At that time, the State Government formed a High Level Committee to look into the issues which arose under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act 1949. The Writ Appeal was therefore disposed of issuing a direction that the Committee could examine the issues raised by the writ petitioner. It had been stated that the Committee issued a report on 17.05.2013 but did not examine the issue of exemption of land from the applicability of the provisions of the Act. The petitioner issued several representations including a legal notice.

4. The petitioner then filed W.P.No.34291 of 2017 seeking examination of further representations. A direction was issued to the Government to examine the course of action that they intend to take. It had been stated that a status report was then filed dated 08.09.2023 before the Court wherein it had been stated that the lands of the petitioner had been inadvertently incl