JUDGMENT :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

1. Under assail is the writ order dated 10.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.8498 of 2022.

2. The appellants are the writ petitioners, instituted writ proceedings challenging the order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the District Collector, Salem, rejecting the application submitted by the appellants to declare their right to possess the land declared as ‘Reserved Forest’ under the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (hereafter referred to as ‘Act, 2006’).

3. The claims of the appellants are that their ancestors were in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing S.No.1905 to an extent of 291.60 acres situated at Suriyur Village, Kuralnatham Panchayat, Panamarathupatti Union, Salem Taluk, Salem District. Their ancestors were in cultivation of land, put up residence and living there for more than 75 years. During the construction of Panamarathupatti Lake and reservoir, vast extent of lands were acquired. As far as the appellants are concerned, they filed an application under Act,2006 to declare their rights to possess the reserved forest land to an extent of 291.60 acres. Since the application submitted by the appellants were rejected by the District Collector, the writ petition came to be instituted. The Writ Court elaborately dealt with the issues raised between the parties and dismissed the petition, which resulted in institution of present intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants would mainly contend that the Act would apply not only to the Scheduled Tribes, but also to ‘Other Traditional Forest Dwellers’. Section 2(o) defines ‘Other Traditional Forest Dwellers’ and the appellants would fall under the definition. Thus, their application ought to have been considered by the District Collector. He would rely on Section 3 which speaks about Forest rights of forest dwellers Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. In the present case, documents have been produced by the appellants before the District Collector to establish that their ancestors were living and cultivating the subject land for more than 75 years. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for a declaration to own the lands under the Act, 2006.

5. It is not in dispute between the parties that the appellants are not residing in the subject land and they are residing in some other place, but was continuing cultivation activities. Since they continue to cultivate the said lands and submitted documents to establish that their ancestors were residing and cultivating the land for more than 75 years, the order of the District Collector, is perverse.

6. Learned Government Advocate would strenuously oppose by stating that before the District Collector/competent authority, the appellants have not produced any piece of evidence to prove that they were cultivating the lands and primarily residing in the subject land for more than 75 years. Admittedly, the appellants are not local residents and they are living outside Jarugumalai and Jalluthu Reserve Forest, as per the records available in the revenue Department. The appellants, admittedly, not belonging to Tribal community. They have not proved their existence in the subject land for atleast three generations, prior to 13.12.2005. They are not depending on the forest land for their livelihood. Therefore, they cannot be construed as “Other Traditional Forest Dwellers” within the meaning under the Act,2006. Jalluthu Forest Block of Salem Taluk has been notified as reservoir of the Madras Forest Act, 1982, and the same came into effect from 15.09.1989 with clear boundaries. Jarugumalai Forest Block was notified as Reserved Forest under Section 16 of the Madras Forest Act, 1882 and the same came into effect on 15.03.1926. Therefore, the appellants were encroachers in the aforesaid Reserved Forest and therefore, they cannot claim any benefit under Act,2006. The appellants made