Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 4269 (MAD)

P. Nainappa Reddy v. Conservation of Forests

2013-12-20

K.K.SASIDHARAN, SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2013
JUDGMENT Satish K. Agnihotri, J & K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. The Challenge is to the proceedings dated 11 October 2011 on the file of Forest Ranger, Tiruttani Region, overruling the contention taken by the petitioners that the land in their possession are not forest land and as such they are entitled to patta. Background facts: 2. The Petitioners are stated to be in possession and enjoyment of the land in old survey No. 86, new survey No. 93, GopalKrishnapuram Village. It is their claim that they have been Cultivating the subject lands with their own physical labour since 1955. The Tahsildar, Tiruttani inspected the lands on 28 July 1970 and submitted a proposal to the Sub Collector, Thiruvallur vide proceedings dated 29 November 1970 stating that the petitioners are all landless poor and by taking into account their Cultivation, patta should be given to them. The District Collector, Chengalpattu pursuant to the recommendation made by the Tahsilder, Tiruttani issued temporary assignments in the year 1971. Since there was an attempt made by the Forest Department to evict them, the petitioners filed W.P. No. 7176 of 1982. The assignment orders were produced in W.P. No. 7176 of 1982. Since the Advocate who conducted the earlier writ petition is no more, the petitioners are not in a position to produce the temporary assignment. The writ petition was ultimately disposed of with a direction that the petitioners should be evicted only in accordance with law. 3. The Revenue Inspector, Ponnimangadu, conducted an enquiry pursuant to the direction given by the Tahsildar, Tiruttani. The Forest Settlement Officer, Kancheepuram also conducted enquiry to consider the question of issuing de-notification proposal in respect of 164.87 acres of land in New Survey No.93 of GopalaKrishnapuram Village. The authorities have not received any objection with regard to the proposal for de-notification. The Tahsildar submitted a report to the District Collector, Thiruvallur by proceedings dated 12 October 1997. The issue is now pending before the District Collector, Thiruvallur. 4. While the matters stood thus, the officials of the Forest Department once again threatened to the disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land held by the petitioners, The petitioners filed W.P. No. 12980 of 2011 to restrain the forest authorities from evicting them except by due process of law. 4. While the matters stood thus, the officials of the Forest Department once again threatened to the disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land held by the petitioners, The petitioners filed W.P. No. 12980 of 2011 to restrain the forest authorities from evicting them except by due process of law. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 30 June 2011 giving Liberty to workout their remedy in the manner Known to law. 5. The forest Ranger, Tiruttani Region issued notice under Section 68-A of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. The said notice was challenged in W.P. No. 21189 of 2011 by the petitioners. The High Court passed an order dated 15 September 2011 giving liberty to the petitioners to submit reply to the notice. The fourth respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders on merits. Thereafter the fourth respondent issued notice to the petitioners and ultimately passed the impugned proceedings negativing their contentions. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners are before this court. 6. The District forest Ranger, Thiruvallur Division filed a counter affidavit contending that a declaration was issued on 1 May 1969 declaring 350 acres of land in Survey No.93 of GopalaKrishnapuram Village as reserve land. The notification was published in the Government Gazette. Ever since the notification, the land vest in the forest department. The District Forest officer contended that the petitioners have been making attempts to take possession of the forest land. According to the District Forest officer, Section 68A of the Forest Act gives authorities to remove any person unauthorizedly occupying any land in reserved forest or any land at the disposal of the Government. Since the petitioners were encroachers, proceedings were taken against them. The Forest Officer contended that the Tahsildar, Tiruttani has no right to issue patta to the petitioners and as such any order passed by the incompetent authority has no legal standing. Submissions: 7. The Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the subject land is shown as “Hill Poramboke” in survey records. The Forest Department has no control over the “hill poramboke”. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners were given temporary assignments earlier. Similarly, the Tahsildar has given them temporary patta. Those documents would prove the fact that the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land. The Forest Department has no control over the “hill poramboke”. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners were given temporary assignments earlier. Similarly, the Tahsildar has given them temporary patta. Those documents would prove the fact that the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land. The learned counsel relied on various documents including the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Tiruttani dated 29 November 1970, the adangal extract and similar documents to substantiate the contention that the petitioners have been undertaking agricultural operations. The learned counsel contended that the matter is now pending before the Government at the instance of the petitioners for issuing patta. Therefore, the Forest Officials were not correct in initiating proceedings under section 68A of the Forest Act. 8. The learned Special Government pleader contended that the land was declared as a “reserve forest” as early as 1 May 1969 and as such the petitioners were not correct in contending that the lands have been in their possession and enjoyment. Factual Analysis: 9. The petitioners have come up with a claim that they are in possession and enjoyment of 164.87 acres of land in Survey No. 93, Gopalkrishnapuram Village, Tiruttani Taluk, Thivallur District. The documents available on record shows that the Tahsilder, Thiruttani submitted a report dated 29 November 1970 to the Sub Collector, Thiruvallur with a request to de-notify 164.87 acres of land so as to issue patta to the persons who are in occupation of the land. The said report contains a statement that the land was notified as forest land under rule 5 of the Madras Forest Rules. The notification was published in the District Gazette dated 1 May 1969. Similarly, there is a finding recorded by this Court in the earlier order dated 16 February 1982 in W.P. No. 7176 of 1982 to the effect that the subject property is a Hill Poramboke. This Court while disposing of the writ petition very clearly stated that the petitioners could be evicted only in accordance with the procedure established by law. There is also an indication in the said order that the de-notification proposal was pending before the Government. 10. The forest department initiated proceedings to evict the petitioners. It was only the eviction notice which was challenged in W.P.No.21189 of 2011. There is also an indication in the said order that the de-notification proposal was pending before the Government. 10. The forest department initiated proceedings to evict the petitioners. It was only the eviction notice which was challenged in W.P.No.21189 of 2011. The learned Judge directed the Forest Officer to conduct enquiry before taking action under Section 68A of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act 1892. The fourth respondent pursuant to the said order conducted enquiry and the same resulted in passing the impugned proceedings. 11. The most question is whether this Court would be justified in setting aside the impugned order in view of the notification dated 5 January 1969 published in the District Gazette. The property in Survey No. 93 of Gopalakrishnapuram Village is declared as “reserve land” from the date of publication of the notification. The earlier proceedings indicate that the District Collector wanted the revenue authorities to de-notify the land. The fact remains that there is no such de-notification as on today. So long as the land is termed as forest land, there is no question of restraining the respondents from taking further action under Section 68-A of the Act. 12. The Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad V. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267 observed that the word “forest” must be understood according to the dictionary meaning and it must be applied to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification. The observation reads thus: “4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word “forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognized forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term “forest land”, occurring in Section 2, will not only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The term “forest land”, occurring in Section 2, will not only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof………….” 13. When it is clear that the property was notified as reserve forest land, any amount of evidence by way of adangal extract or certificate issued by the lower level officers of the revenue department would be of no relevance to decide the issue raised in these writ petitions. Even as per the documents produced by the petitioners, the Tahsildar has only made recommendation to de-notify land. There are no documents available on record to show that pursuant to the request made by the Tahsildar the Government was pleased to de-notify the land in Survey No. 93, Gopalakrishnapuram Village. Therefore, we are of the view that the fourth respondent was correct in negativing the contention taken by the petitioners. 14. In the upshot, we dismiss the writ petitions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.