Permission for minor repair work in private forest areas does not require prior approval from the preservation committee if it does not affect the forest's integrity.

JUDGMENT :

(S. SRIMATHY, J.)

The present writ appeal is filed against the order dated 04.07.2024 passed in W.P.(MD)No.14734 of 2024.

2. The writ petition was filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned proceedings dated 18.03.2024 and consequently to direct the respondents to permit the writ petitioner to transport materials to carry out minor repair work in Directors quarters and workers quarters.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner is having an estate near Vellimalai region. Due to heavy downpour of rain, the roofs of labour quarters office building and guest house have been damaged which requires immediate repair. Hence, the writ petitioner submitted a request, dated 09.10.2024, to permit to transport materials to repair the damaged buildings. In response to the same, the Deputy Director of Srivilliputhur Megamalai Tiger Reserve returned the request and stated that Vellimalai region is coming within the purview of Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act , 1949 and Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act , 1955. Hence, the request ought to be submitted to the committee headed by the District Collector. Aggrieved over the said communication, the writ petition was filed.

4. After considering the rival submissions, the Writ Court directed the District Collector to accord suitable permission within a period of one week. Aggrieved over the same the Deputy Director of Srivilliputhur Megamalai Tiger Reserve has preferred the present appeal.

5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant submitted that the 1^st respondent herein / writ petitioner is seeking permission to do construction activity and the said land are notified as private forest and are coming within the purview of Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act , 1949. Therefore, the appropriate authority is the Committee headed by the District Collector. It is seen that the Writ Court has suo motu impleaded the District Collector and has directed him to accord permission, but the District Collector is not the appropriate authority at all. Even though the District Collector is heading the Committee but the District Collector in his capacity as District Collector cannot grant permission, it is the Committee’s decision. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion the direction of the Writ Court is erroneous.

6. The next contention of the appellant is that if any activity ought to carried out in the private forest, then the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act , 1949 is applicable and under section 3 of the Act the pervious sanction is necessary. In order to consider the same, the relevant provision is extracted hereunder:

“3. Preservation of private forests:- (1) (a) No owner of any private forest shall, without the previous sanction of the Committee sell, mortgage, lease or otherwise alienate the whole or any portion of the forest.

Explanation: Nothing in the sub-section can be construed as preventing the owner from selling or otherwise dealing with the right together and remove forest product other than ¹[trees, timber and reeds] in the usual or customary manner for a period of exceeding two years.

(b) Any alienation is contravention of clause(a) shall be null and void-

(i) If the alienation of any forest declared by [the District Collector] to be a forest under clause (iii) of section 1(2) or of any portion of such a forest and is made on or after the date on which the declaration takes effect;

(ii) [………]

(iii) If the alienation of any forest or any portion of such a forest, and is made on or after the 16^th August 1946.]

[(2) No owner of any forest and no person claiming under him, whether by virtue