The court upheld the continued validity of a notification under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, citing the principles of res judicata and rejecting claims of desuetude after decades of non-enforcement.

ORDER

It is the case of the petitioner's Association that they are a registered association consist of likeminded people with the objective of carrying on eco tourism in a sustainable manner. The petitioner association consists of 9 members, who had purchased their lands before the enactment of the notification issued under Section 1 (2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act (TNPPF Act), on 01.11.1991 which declared certain government and private lands to be private forests in certain revenue villages of Udhagamandalam Taluk, Sholur Village and Gudalur Taluk. The sole intent and purpose of this notifiation was to ban further setting up of industries within the radius of 5 mile in the Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary. Challenging the validity of the notification dated 01.11.1991, the present writ petition has been filed. Press notes on 22.11.1991 and letters of the District Collector dated 05.12.1991 stated that the notified lands would not be subject to any restriction in respect of their right to sell, transfer or lease. However, the District Collector vide letter dated 21.08.2009 issued directions to the District Registrar not to register any sale transactions of land notified by the TNPPF Act. It is their grievance that between 15.11.1991 and September 2009, thousands of land transfers/alienation pertaining to the lands covered by the notification were registered without insisting on prior permission from the Committee in terms of Section 3 of the Act and there were mutations also. Since, the notification was issued as early as on 15.11.1991, there was no occasion to challenge the same since the notification was never enforced and the Act is a dead letter. It is also their grievance that nowhere "forest" or "forest land" has been defined. The notification under TNPPF Act too does not have inclusive definition. The TNPPF Act is only regulatory and adversely affects the fundamental rights of the petitioner. Further, the impugned notification is issued under Section 1 (2) (ii) of the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 ought to have seen that the power to notify the lands as forests under the said provisions is confined to forests situated in Estates as defined in the Tamil Nadu Estate Land Act, 1908 in the State of Tamil Nadu. Hence, the petitioner challenges the notification dated 15.11.1991 as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300 (A) of the Constitution of India.

2. Mr.Salman Khurshid, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in WP.No.27312 of 2016 submitted that the TNPPF Act governs regulatory regimes and aims at regulation and not restriction. The regulatory regime includes the TNPPF Act, Eco-sensitive zone notification,and the Forest Conservation Act altogether propose to shun felling of trees and not to obstruct peaceful living.The press note of the public information officer does not indicate obstruction of the standard living in the locality or to acquire the respective areas, but to regulate and avoid derogation, thereby adhering to the principles of eco-sensitivezone protection. Indulging in the definition of forest extracted from the case of Godavarman Thirumalpad , 1996 and Noida Bird Sanctuary case , the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the challenged area does not come under forest land If there are no revenue entries from the said lands. The Chief Wildlife Warden notified on 15.02.1998 that the notified forests do not come under the . T