Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1232 (MAD)

Baheeswari Rani v. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 & Others

2006-05-10

P.JYOTHIMANI

body2006
Judgment :- (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the fourth respondent, dated 27.9.2001 made in proceedings No.M/798/2000, quash the same and direct the fourth respondent to grant necessary permission, after providing for necessary safeguards, to remove the wind fallen trees and firewood from their patta land known as "KATTALAIMALAI ESTATE" comprised in S.No.1168/1C 1L (an extent of 1515.67 acres) and S.No.1168/3B (73.40 acres), Vikramasingapuram, Part II Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District as per the original application, dated 7.2.2000 and pass such further orders.) This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the fourth respondent, dated 27.9.2001, under which the fourth respondent, while considering the application of the petitioner, has passed the order rejecting the permission sought for by the petitioner to remove the dead and wind fallen trees on the ground that the estate is located in a core area of Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve and forms part of the sanctuary. 2. The fourth respondent has filed the counter affidavit, wherein, it is specifically admitted that the petitioner's land, which is the subject matter in this writ petition, is a patta land and the same is not declared as a wildlife sanctuary or national park, but is notified as a private forest as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949. It is not even the case of the fourth respondent that even in cases where the land is notified as a private forest under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949, the permission to remove the dead and wind fallen trees cannot be granted. 3. While so, considering the contentions made in the counter affidavit, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent is unsustainable. In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside on the basis that the land involved is a patta land and the same is not declared as a wildlife sanctuary or national park. In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside on the basis that the land involved is a patta land and the same is not declared as a wildlife sanctuary or national park. Therefore, the fourth respondent is directed to grant necessary permission for the purpose of removal of wind fallen trees and firewood from the patta land known as "Kattalaimalai Estate" comprised in S.No.1168/1C 1L (an extent of 1515.67 acres) and S.No.1168/3B (73.40 acres), Vikramasingapuram Part II Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. The writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There will be no order as to costs.