JUDGMENT :- M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 12.7.2011, made in W.P.No.5825 of 2010. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had stated that the appellant had filed a writ petition, in W.P.No.5825 of 2010, praying for a writ of declaration, declaring that the Special Notification, dated 01.11.1991, published by the 2nd respondent, in the Nilgiri District Gazette Extra-ordinary, on 15.11.1991, under Section 1[2][ii] of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949, and the subsequent circular, dated 21.8.2009, issued in Rc.A4 No.62857 of 2008, by the 2nd respondent, is illegal, unjust and ab initio void. 3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ appeal, the main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the impugned notification, dated 1.11.1991, published by the 2nd respondent, is not applicable to the appellant, since, the land owned by him is less than 2 hectares, in extent. He had further submitted that the impugned notification, dated 1.11.1991, had been issued, under Section 1[2][ii] of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949 [in short 'the Act']. Sub-clause [iii] of Section 1 [2] of the Act states that private forests situated in other areas in the State of Tamil Nadu and having a contiguous area exceeding 2 hectares may be declared by the committee to be forests for the purposes of this Act, by notification, in the District Gazette. Accordingly, the land belonging to the appellant, being less than 2 hectares, in extent, is exempted from the applicability of the said impugned notification. 4. We find that the issued raised, by the appellant, is factual in nature, and therefore, it has be gone into by the authority concerned. It is also noted that the State Government has issued a notification, in G.O.[D] No.322, Environment and Forests [FR.3] Department, dated 3.9.2012, in and by which, a High Level Committee, comprising of the higher officials of the Forest Department and certain other Officers, had been formed to go into such issues. It is also noted that the appellant had submitted a representation, before the said Committee, on 28.11.2012, and the said representation is pending consideration by the High Level Committee. 5. It is also noted that the appellant had submitted a representation, before the said Committee, on 28.11.2012, and the said representation is pending consideration by the High Level Committee. 5. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted that it would suffice, if this Court directs the High Level Committee, constituted under G.O.[D] No.322, Environment and Forests [FR.3] Department, dated 3.9.2012, to go into the issues and to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the appellant, on 28.11.2012. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the Chairman, High Level Committee, constituted under G.O.[D] No.322, Environment and Forests [FR.3] Department, dated 3.9.2012, to consider the representation of the appellant, dated 28.11.2012, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible. However, it is made clear that the issue raised by the appellant, relating to the applicability of the impugned notification, dated 1.11.1991, published by the 2nd respondent in the Nilgiri District Gazette Extra-ordinary, on 15.11.1991, under Section 1[2][ii] of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949, is left open, to be decided by the appropriate authority, in the manner known to law. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.