Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 531 (MAD)

A. Shanmughan v. State of Tamil Nadu

2025-01-27

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

body2025
ORDER : C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to letter No. 1326/FR.12/2018-22 dated 16.11.2023 issued by the second respondent/the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Environment, Climate Change, and Forest (FR.12) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 and to direct the first ad second respondents to consider the status report dated 08.09.2023 filed by the third respondent, the Chairman, District Committee constituted under TNPPF Act, Office of District Collector, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District and pass orders exempting the lands in Old S.No. 175/73, New S.No. 534/1 and Old S.No.175/70, New S.No. 534/3 measuring an extent of 1.70 acres and 1.30 acres at Munnanad Village, Nilgiris District and consequently declare that the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949 is not applicable to the above lands. It had been contended that patta had also been granted under new patta No.313 for the aforementioned land. 2 . The Writ Petitioner further stated that the property had been assigned to him by proceeding dated 24.07.1972 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudalur. After the statutory period of 10 years, he had been granted Ryotwari patta bearing No. 493 by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Gudalur and his name had been incorporated in the Revenue Registers. Thereafter, a new patta No.313 had been assigned and the land had been recorded as patta land in the revenue records, chitta, A-Register, Adangal and F.M.B. It had been further contended that by a Gazettee Notification dated 15.11.1991, issued under Section 2(1)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949, five villages of Udhagamandalam Taluk and 10 villages of Gudalur and Pandalur Taluk in Nilgiri District were declared as private forest. The property of the petitioner was also brought under the ambit of the Act by the said notification. It had been claimed that this notification came to the knowledge of the petitioner only in the year 2009 when the District Collector issued a letter dated 21.08.2009 addressed to the District Registrar to verify whether the lands sought to be registered under any instrument had been declared and notified as private forest and if so declared then the written permission of the District Committee should be produced by the land owner who intends to sell the land. 3. 3. The petitioner then filed W.P.No. 5825 of 2010 to declare the notification dated 15.11.1991 and the subsequent circular issued by the District Collector as illegal and ab initio void. The Writ Petition was dismissed by an order dated 12.07.2011. The petitioner then filed W.A.No. 2154 of 2011. At that time, the State Government formed a High Level Committee to look into the issues which arose under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act 1949. The Writ Appeal was therefore disposed of issuing a direction that the Committee could examine the issues raised by the writ petitioner. It had been stated that the Committee issued a report on 17.05.2013 but did not examine the issue of exemption of land from the applicability of the provisions of the Act. The petitioner issued several representations including a legal notice. 4. The petitioner then filed W.P.No.34291 of 2017 seeking examination of further representations. A direction was issued to the Government to examine the course of action that they intend to take. It had been stated that a status report was then filed dated 08.09.2023 before the Court wherein it had been stated that the lands of the petitioner had been inadvertently included under the provisions of the Act and that the lands are patta lands and have not been classified as authorised under any notification or law. However, the Writ Petition was disposed of on 14.11.2023 directing examination of the representation given by the petitioner. 5. The petitioner had given a fresh representation on 28.12.2023. That representation was rejected by letter dated 16.11.2023 which is impugned in this Writ Petition. Primarily, the petitioner placed reliance on the status report filed wherein it had been contended that the lands of the writ petitioner had been inadvertently included as forest in the notification. 6. A counter affidavit had been filed by the second respondent/the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Environment, Climate Change and Forest (FR.12) Department, wherein it had been stated that Section 1(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act 1949 would apply to private forest situated in other areas of the State of Tamilnadu having a contiguous area exceeding 2.00.00 hectares. It had been further stated that the object of the Act was to prevent indiscriminate destruction of private forest with aim to maintain ecology in the State of Tamilnadu. It had been further stated that the object of the Act was to prevent indiscriminate destruction of private forest with aim to maintain ecology in the State of Tamilnadu. It had been further stated that the total area of land in patta No. 313 in the name of the petitioner was 1.21.50 hectares which is less than 2 hectare but it had been further stated that the total area of land in S.No. 534/1 to 534/7 is 2.90.50 hectare, namely, 7.18 acres and that the entire area had been notified as Forest under the provisions of the Act. Owing to devolution of title among the family members, the petitioner had been allotted 1.21.50 hectare in S.Nos. 534/1 and 534/3. But however it had been stated that even this area was included in the larger area of S.Nos.534/1 to 534/7 and therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the fact that his holding is less than 2 hectare. It had been stated that the term used in the Act is contiguous area and not sub divided area. It had thus been stated that the relief sought in the writ petition is misconceived. 7. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.M.Vijay Mehanath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Seenivasan, learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) appearing for the respondent. 8. The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking interference with a letter issued by the second respondent/the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Environment, Climate Change, and Forest (FR.12) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai, dated 16.11.2023 in letter No. 1326/FR.12/2018- 22 by which letter, it had been stated that the Government had examined the representation given by the petitioner and had rejected the request of the petitioner to denotify the lands belonging to him from the provisions of the Tamilnadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949. The reasons for such rejection had been given in the letter and they are as follows:- “5. The Government have examined your representation in the reference 3 rd cited and to state the following:- 1) The High Level Committee [constituted vide G.O.(Ms0. No. 322, Environment and Forests (FR.3) Department, dated 3.9.2012] has not made any recommendation for inclusion or exclusion of any area from the TNPPF Act, 1949. The Government have examined your representation in the reference 3 rd cited and to state the following:- 1) The High Level Committee [constituted vide G.O.(Ms0. No. 322, Environment and Forests (FR.3) Department, dated 3.9.2012] has not made any recommendation for inclusion or exclusion of any area from the TNPPF Act, 1949. 2) As per Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949 notifying lands measuring 2 hectares and above adjoining the RF under TNPPF Act 1949, denotes the lands contiguous to such RF under TNPPF Act 1949, denotes the lands contiguous to such RF irrespective of ownership or extent of such ownership. Interpreting the same as the lands below 2 hectares cannot be notified under TNPPF Act, 1949 is unfounded and contrary to settled position of law. 3) The validity of Notification dated 1.11.1991 was upheld by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Court, whereby the contention that lands below 2 hectares cannot be notified under TNPPF Act, 1949 has been rejected.” 9. Even before proceeding further, it would only be appropriate that the provisions of the said Act are examined. The Act,namely, the Tamilnadu Preservation of Private Forest Act 1949 had been brought into effect to prevent the indiscriminate destruction of private forest and to prevent interference with customary and prescriptive rights. The Act applies to private forest situated in other areas of State of Tamilnadu and to lands having contiguous area exceeding 2 hectares. It does not apply to Reserve Forest constituted under the Tamilnadu Forest Act, 1882. Section 1(2) of the Act is as follows:- “Section 1(2): it applies (iii): to private forests situated in other areas on the Stae of [Tamil Nadu] and having a contiguous area exceeding (2 hectares) which may be declared by the [Committee] to be forests for the purposes of this Act, by notification, in the District Gazettee but does not apply to reserved forests constituted under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, and lands at the disposal of the Government as defined in that Act.” 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the lands held by the petitioner are less than 2 hectares and therefore the provisions of the Act would not apply. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the lands held by the petitioner are less than 2 hectares and therefore the provisions of the Act would not apply. It must also be stated that under Section 2(1)(ii) of the Act forest situated in estates as defined in the [Tamil Nadu] Estate Land Act, 1938 would also come under the purview of the Act. Section 2(1)(ii) of the Act is as follows:- “Section 2(1)(ii) to forests situated in estates as defined in the [Tamil Nadu] Estate Land Act, 1938, in the [State] of Tamil Nadu.” 11. This was with specific reference to the District of Nilgiris. 12. In this context, it must be pointed out that in the District of Nilgiris, private estate holders enjoyed vast areas of land which over lapped with the forest area. Those lands were owned by private individuals but still had to be necessarily declared as private forest area to preserve the ecology and environment. 13. A notification had been issued on 15.11.1991 under the aforementioned provision declaring 5 villages of Udhagamandalam Taluk and 10 villages of Gudalur and Pandalur Taluks of Nilgiri District as private forest. The total area so declared was 46,730.68 acres. The lands of the petitioner fell in Munnanad Village. They had also been classified as private forest under the said notification of the year 1991. 14. The petitioner's claim of ignorance of such notification is to his peril. He cannot claim ignorance. He cannot plead innocence and he cannot seek indulgence of this Court on that ground. 15. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No. 5825 of 2010 seeking a declaration that the said notification is illegal and void. In the same Writ Petition, he also sought a similar declaration with respect to a circular issued by the District Collector dated 21.08.2009. By such circular, the District Collector had called upon the Sub Registrars to examine whether the lands which were sought to be registered by any instrument were actually part of the areas declared as private forest under the notification. The Writ Petition was dismissed. The petitioner then filed W.A.No. 2154 of 2011. 16. In the meanwhile, the Government had formed a High Level Committee to look into the issues that arose under the classification of lands as private forest under the Act. The Writ Petition was dismissed. The petitioner then filed W.A.No. 2154 of 2011. 16. In the meanwhile, the Government had formed a High Level Committee to look into the issues that arose under the classification of lands as private forest under the Act. The issue relating to the petitioner kept meandering in circles around directions given to approach the High Level Committee and representations to be given and to be considered. But the fact is that the lands of the petitioners came under the areas notified as private forest under the Gazettee Notification on 15.11.1991. 17. In the present Writ Petition, the only ground raised by the writ petitioner is that a status report dated 08.09.2023 had been filed by in an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No. 34291 of 2017 by the District Revenue Officer, who was in charge of the office of the District Collector at Nilgiris in which status report, the said official had stated that the land owned by the writ petitioner had been inadvertently notified in the Gazette Notification dated 15.11.1991 contrary to the provision of Section 2(ii) of the Act. Based on this status report, the petitioner had given a representation to the respondent which had been rejected and therefore, this Writ Petition has been filed. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on this status report filed by the District Revenue Officer, who was placed in charge of the office of the District Collector at Nilgiris. 19. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner further placed reliance on the Judgment of a learned Single Judge, High Court of Karnataka dated 22.11.2024 in W.P.No. 6889 of 2015 D.Muniraju and others Vs. State of Karnataka represented by is Secretary, Forest Department and others. That Writ Petition had been filed questioning an order of the second respondent/Chief Conservator of Forests and Appellate Authority, Bengaluru Circle, dated 19.12.2014 in Appeal No. 135 of 2008 affirming an earlier order dated 09.09.2008 passed by the third respondent, Assistant Conservator of Forests declaring the lands belonging to the petitioners to be forest lands. The learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court had examined the report filed which stated that the lands which were the subject matter in the writ petition bordered the forest land and was not actually forest land. The learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court had examined the report filed which stated that the lands which were the subject matter in the writ petition bordered the forest land and was not actually forest land. It was also observed that there was no encroachment by the writ petitioners inside the forest land. Reliance was placed on a survey report of the State which indicated this fact. It was observed that the forest land abutted the lands of the petitioners and it was also held that it could not be interfered that forest land has stretched into private lands. It was under those circumstances that the orders passed by the respondents declaring the lands of the petitioner therein as forest l ands was quashed. 20. The distinguishing factor is that the lands of the writ petitioners therein were abutting the border of the forest land. They were not within the forest land. It was also not the case of the respondents therein that the petitioners had encroached into the forest land. Since the lands were outside the border of the forest land, it was held that the lands could not be declared as forest lands by the respondent/State. 21. This Judgment would not come to the assistance of the petitioner herein as the lands of the petitioner falls within the lands declared and notified as forest lands. It is not outside the boundaries. It is very much within the boundary. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on a Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 1593 of 1999 dated 26.11.2007 N.Mangalchand Vaid and others Vs. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Forests and Fisheries Department and others wherein the Division Bench had actually stated that there was no bar for the Government in declaring contiguous area exceeding 2 hectares as a private forest. 23. The learned counsel placed reliance on this observation to hold that the lands held by the petitioner was less than 2 hectares and therefore, could not be declared as private forest. 24. The argument of the petitioner is based on suppression of material facts. The lands originally ranged from S.Nos. 534/1 to 534/7. That contiguous land was more than 2 hectares. That fact cannot be denied or disputed by the petitioner. That fact had been suppressed by the petitioner. 24. The argument of the petitioner is based on suppression of material facts. The lands originally ranged from S.Nos. 534/1 to 534/7. That contiguous land was more than 2 hectares. That fact cannot be denied or disputed by the petitioner. That fact had been suppressed by the petitioner. Owing to various divisions within the family for various reasons which the petitioner should have disclosed and had not disclosed, the petitioner came to be recognised as owner of 2 tracts of land in S.Nos. 534/1 and 534/4. But these two lands were part of a larger area of land. That larger area of land had been declared as forest land. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the division of lands owing to various circumstance and claim exemption. Such claim is a fraud played on the Court and on the authorities. The claim made on the basis that the lands were less than 2 hectares is rejected. 25. Strong arguments were based on the status report filed by the District Revenue Officer, who was in charge of the Office of the District Collector at Nilgiris and who filed the status report in W.P.No. 34291 of 2017 wherein it had been stated that the lands of the petitioner had been inadvertently notified in the Gazettee dated 15.11.1991. This status report is rejected by this Court. It is not filed by the District Collector. It had not been subsequently counter signed by the District Collector whenever, the District Collector had assumed office. It is not the case that the District Revenue Officer was authorised to file the status report. Even if authorised, the District Revenue Officer had no right or authority to fetter away the lands of the Government to a private individual. The argument of the District Revenue Officer fails as he had not noted that the lands of the petitioner was part of a larger area of land which was comprised in S.Nos. 534/1 to 534/7 and that the said larger area of land was more than 2 hectares and the lands in that particular Taluk had been declared as private forest by the Government notification dated 15.11.1991. The petitioner cannot place reliance on the status report. 26. 534/1 to 534/7 and that the said larger area of land was more than 2 hectares and the lands in that particular Taluk had been declared as private forest by the Government notification dated 15.11.1991. The petitioner cannot place reliance on the status report. 26. In the counter affidavit filed to this Writ Petition, it had been very clearly stated that the High Level Committee have examined the said issue and had rejected the claim of the petitioner that the lands of the petitioner should be exempted. No arguments had been advanced why that particular reasoning should not be taken into consideration by the Court. 27. The petitioner has placed reliance on a status report which probably had been purchased for tainted consideration. I would reject the status report and reject the arguments placed based on such status report. I am not inclined to grant the relief sought by the petitioner. 28. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions stands closed.