The lack of documentary evidence to establish title over land classified as Reserve Forest resulted in the dismissal of claims, emphasizing the binding nature of governmental declarations.

JUDGMENT :

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

Unsuccessful Plaintiffs in O.S.No.114 of 2004 on the file of the learned District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur have filed this Second Appeal challenging the dismissal of their prayer that the suit for declaration and injunction for an extent of 16.49 Acres of Reserve Forest Land and confirmed in AS.No.4 of 2013 on the file of learned Sub-Judge, Theni.

2. The Plaintiffs except the 4^th plaintiff in O.S.No.114 of 2004 are the appellants herein. The defendants and the 4^th plaintiff in O.S.No.114 of 2004 are the respondents.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after shall be referred to as per their status/ranking before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments made in the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiffs stated that the suit scheduled property originally belonged to Bodinayakanur Zamin. During the Zamin period, assignment was made in favour of one Perumal Naickar and they had occupied the said lands and planted Silk Cotton plants, Coffee and Citron Plants by investing huge amount. On 05.03.1954, the Bodinayakanur Zamin was taken over by the Government under the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 and final settlement enquiry was completed as per the Act in the year 1962. Without knowledge about the proceedings, on the basis of the enjoyment, the said Perumal Naickar effected registered partition deed on 22.12.1961 and submitted the application to grant Ryoitwari Patta and to remove the classification “Kadu” and same was declined. Challenging the same, they had filed a Writ petition before this court and same was remitted to the government to consider the case of Perumal Naickar. During the pendency of the same, the sons of the Perumal Naickar sold the properties to the plaintiffs 2 to 5 by a Sale deed dated 26.07.1969. The plaintiffs 2 to 5 as purchasers have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property filed this suit to declare the suit scheduled property is their absolute property and permanent injunction restraining the Government officials interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property.

5. The brief averments made in the written statement are as follows:-

The Defendants denied the title and the case of the plaintiffs. Under the Estate Abolition Act, 1948, the land was taken over in the year 1954 by the Government. On 02.06.1954, the land was declared as “Reserve Forest' and brought under the control of Forest Department and proper notification was also issued on 02.06.1954 and the further declaration was issued in Government Gazatte as per the Forest Act on 30.04.1977 and also proper revenue declaration with classification “Kadu” also was made in the “A” Register. They specifically denied the age of Silk Cotton plants as stated in the plaint and the suit was filed after 40 years from the date of the proceedings taken under the Estate Abolition Act and the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and hence, the suit is obviously barred by limitation. The plaintiffs encroached the lands and thereafter, they filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.1523 of 1999 to fix a sum of Rs.500/- as a lease amount per hectare and the same was dismissed. Further, as per the Tamil Nadu Forest Act once notification was issued, no one is entitled to claim title over the Reserve Forest Land. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Writ petition No.202 of 1995 specifically held that title of all the forest lands are vested with the Government.

Therefore, they seek to dismiss the suit.

6.Based on the above said pleading, the trial Court has framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of declaration and consequential permanent injunction as prayed for in the plaint?

2. Whether the land is encroached?

3.Whether the suit is bad for limitation?

4.To