Civil Courts can adjudicate on property title despite the Estate Abolition Act, but must establish evidential basis for claims, particularly regarding Reserve Forest classifications.

JUDGMENT :

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

Unsuccessful Plaintiff in O.S.No.113 of 2004 on the file of the learned District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur has filed this Second Appeal challenging the dismissal of his prayer that the suit for declaration and injunction for an extent of 27.39 Acres of Reserve Forest Land and confirmed in AS.No.44 of 2013 on the file of learned Sub-Judge, Theni.

2. The Plaintiff in O.S.No.113 of 2004 is the appellant herein. The defendants 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 plaintiff stated that the suit schedule property originally belonged to Bodinayakanur Zamin. During the Zamin period, assignment was made in favour of Ramasamy Naidu and his wife and they had occupied the said land and planted Silk Cotton Trees by investing huge amount. On 05.03.1954, the Bodinayakanur Zamin was taken over by the Government under the Estate Abolition Act 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 Ramasamy Naidu and his wife sold the properties to M/sChookkar Thevar, Pojaiyan Settiyar, Ponnaiyan @ Venkitasamy Nadar and Krishnasamy Nadar and they were in possession and enjoyment of the property. From the legal heirs of Pojaiyan Settiyar, Ponnaiyan @ Venkitasamy Nadar and Krishnasamy Nadar, the plaintiff purchased ¾ of the suit schedule property on 30.03.1977 and also purchased the remaining ¼ of the suit schedule property from the legal heirs of Chokkar Thevar on 31.05.1977. The suit schedule property is a Ryoitwari land and the same was wrongly classified as “Kadu”. The defendants interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff as a purchaser has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and filed the suit to declare the suit scheduled property as his absolute property and sought for permanent injunction restraining the Government officials interfering with his 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 plaintiff. Under the Estate Abolition Act 1948, the land was taken 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 also issued on 02.06.1954 and the further declaration 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, suit is obviously barred by limitation. The plaintiff encroached the lands and thereafter, 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 is issued, no one is entitled to claim title over the Reserve Forest Land. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the WP.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