Judgment :- Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the property, commonly known as “Silver Cloud Estates”, in Upper Gudalur, at Nilgiris, notified as a Private Forest under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, as well as the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949. 2. The petitioner eompkins that inspite of repeated ‘complaints by the petitioner to the respondents 1, 2 and 4 against the illegal cutting of trees, affecting the ecological balance in the impugned area, the respondents 1, 2 and 4 had not taken appropriate action, contemplated under Section 40-V, 51 and 53 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949. 3. Mr. A.U. Ilango, learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulpad v. Union of India reported in AIR 1998 S.C. 769 , contends that the respondents 1, 2 and 4 should not ignore their statutory duties, referred to above, and further contends that an action plan should be prepared by the first respondent for effective protection of the petitioners private forest. 3A. Mr. Titus Jusudoss, learned counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 4, brought to my notice, the undertaking given by the respondents to protect the private forests, which reads as follows: “The respondents and the staff of the Forest Department are keeping a close watch on these properties as it is necessary to protect private forests and see that the commission of forest offences are avoided. “ 4. The Apex Court, in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India , reported in AIR 1998 S.C. 769 , has directed the connected authorities to protect and to scientifically manage the forest by drawing an appropriate action plan, and thus held as follows: “An action plan shall be prepared by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests/Chief Forests Officer for intensive patrolling and other necessary protective measures to be undertaken indentified vulnerable areas and quartely report shall be submitted to the Central Government for approval. The approved plan together with the modifications, if any, shall be acted upon.” 5. The approved plan together with the modifications, if any, shall be acted upon.” 5. Considering the facts circumstances of the case, the grievance of the petitioner and the relief sought for in the above writ petition, I am of the considered opinion that the statement of the respondents that they are keeping a close watch to protect the impugned private forest would not by itself be sufficient, unless they work out an effective scientific action plan with an intensive patrolling, in order to prevent such illegal cutting of trees in any forest area, and to implement the same scrupulously, as directed by the Apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India , reported in AIR 1998 S.C. 769 . That apart, the petitioner is also permitted to make complaints in writing to respondents 1, 2 and 4, as and when they come across any such illegal cutting of tress, and on receipt of such complaints from the petitioner, the respondents 1, 2 and 4 shall take all effective action against the persons who violate and commit the offences, attracting the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Forests Act, 1882 and the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949. 6. The writ petition is ordered accordingly, Consequently, W.M.P. No. 20289 of 1996 is closed. No costs.