Madras High Court
( vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 August, 2024
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 31.07.2024
Pronounced on 20.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.7433 and 7434 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD)No.14347 of 2024
N.Jeevarathinam,
S/o.Nagupillai
Represented by his Power of Attorney
K.Kamaraj Pandian,
S/o.Kamaraj Kannadiar
(Petitioner is amened vide Court Order
dated 05.07.2024 in W.M.P.(MD)No.11762 of 2024
in W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020 ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Environment and Forest Department,
St. George Fort, Chennai.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
St. George Fort, Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Theni District.
4.The District Revenue Officer,
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
Theni District.
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Uthamapalayam Division,
Theni District.
6.The Thasildhar,
Bodinayakkanur Taluk,
Theni District.
7.The District Forest Officer,
Theni District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating
with the Government Notification in G.O.Ms.No.160, dated 26.11.2009 issued
by the first respondent and published on 12.05.2010 in No.5, in Theni District
Gazette, declaring the land in Survey Number measuring 28 cents in S.No.
589/1, and 13 Acre 79 Cents in S.No.589/3 in Agamalai Village,
Bodinayakkanur Taluk, Theni District, as “Reserve Forest” and quash the same
as it is illegal and contravene to Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and in
consequence to direct the fourth respondent to reclassify above said lands, as
private land instead of Forest on the basis of the Settlement Land Register and
to carry out the same in all the revenue records.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan
For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for the following relief:
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020“Calling for the records relating with the Government
Notification in G.O.Ms.No.160 dated 26/11/2009 issued by the
1st respondent and published on 12/05/2010 in No.5 in Theni
district Gazette declaring the land in Survey Number measuring
28 Cents in S.No.589/1, and 13 Acre 79 Cents in S.No.589/3 in
Agamalai Village, Bodinayakanur Taluk, Theni District, as
“Reserve Forest” and quash the same as it is illegal and
contravene to Section 3 of the Tamilnadu Forest Act and in
consequence to direct the 4th respondent to reclassify above
said lands as private land instead of Forest on the basis of the
Settlement Land Register and to carry out the same in all the
revenue records.”
2. The land in question is said to have been purchased by one
Mr.M.Nagupillai from Mrs. Chinnathayi aliases Veerammal on 07.03.1949 in
Zamin Pymash No.1061, in respect of which, Patta transfer was made in the
name of Mr.M.Nagupillai on 28.06.1949. Similarly, On 10.03.1949
Mr.M.Nagupillai also purchased another extent of land from Mr.Periyakaruppa
Thevar in Zamin Pymash No.1058 with which we are not concerned in this
case.
3. The land, in question stood vested with the Government of Tamil
Nadu , vide G.O.Ms.No.3157 of the Revenue Department, dated 09.12.1950,
under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,
1948, hereinafter referred to as the Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition Act,1948
after it came into force on 19.04.1949.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.3 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
4. The entire extent of land was also notified in Madurai District Gazette
on 02.06.1954 under Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882.
Meanwhile, during 1963, the Revenue Settlement Proceedings were completed
under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948.
5. The subject land was later notified under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Forest Act, 1882, to constitute the land as “Reserve Forest” on 30.04.1977.
Thereafter, proclamation under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882
was issued by the Forest Settlement Officer (FSO) on 14.06.1978 in the District
Gazatte in English and on 20.04.1978 in Tamil. Meanwhile, the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted, which came into force on 25.10.1980.
The subject land has been classified as forest land.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 07.05.1999 in I.A.No.
418 in W.P.(C).No.202 of 1995 and in T.N.Godhavarman vs. Union of India
(1997) 2 SCC 267, had issued series of omnibus Order restraining the
Government from issuing patta over the reserved forest land.
7. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the power of
attorney holder of one Mr.N.Jeevarathinam (since deceased), the son of late
Mr.M.Nagupillai. It appears that earlier, the said Mr.N.Jeevarathinam had
entered into a Sale Agreement dated 01.08.2008, with the petitioner’s wife
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.4 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
Mariammal for sale of the subject land.
8. Later, Mr.N.Jeevarathinam (since deceased) had purportedly executed
a registered Power of Attorney dated 23.12.2008 which was registered as
Document No.1519 of 2008, before the Joint Sub-Registrar No.II, Dindigul in
favour of the petitioner. During the interregnum, Mr.N.Jeevarathinam has also
died. Thus, the Petitioner is not the owner of the subject land.
9. Initially, the present writ petition was filed by the deponent,
K.Kamaraj Pandian as the petitioner in his personal capacity and not as Power
of Attorney of Mr.N.Jeevarathinam. Thereafter, the petitioner prayed for
amending the cause title in the present writ petition in the name of
Mr.N.Jeevarathinam, S/o.M.Nagapillai. Thus, the Writ Petition is now in the
capacity of a Power of Attorney Holder of Mr. N.Jeevarathinam (since
deceased).
10. It appears that no claim was made by Late Mr.N.Nagupillai, the
father of Late Mr.N.Jeevarathinam, for issuance of Settlement Patta under the
provisions of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948, though Patta No.825 was earlier
issued to Late Mr.N.Nagupillai, which is said to have been issued to the latter
under the relevant Revenue Standing Orders as in force during that period.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.5 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
11. After coming to know that the subject matter lands were classified as
“Kaadu” (Forest), the Petitioner made a representation before the 3rd
Respondent/District Collector in the year 2009 stating that the land was
wrongly classified as a forest land. The representation was forwarded to the
then Forest Settlement Officer, who had given a report dated 26.08.2009 stating
that the classification of the land as ‘Kaadu’ was wrong and that it was only a
patta land, since ryotwari patta was issued during the Settlement Period in the
name of Late Mr.N.Jeevarathinam during his life time, which was overlooked.
However, there are no documents to show that Mr. N.Jeevarathinam was
instead issued with a Settlement Patta under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Estates Abolition Act, 1948. Relevant portion of said report dated 26.08.2009
of the then Forest Settlement Officer as under:
“Mf nkw;go g[y’;fs; ,uz;Lk; UDR “m” gjpntl;od;go “fhL”
vd ghFghL bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,e;epyj;jpy; fhkuh$;ghz;oad;
vd;gth; khhpak;khs; bgahpy; gl;lh tH’;f nfl;Ls;shh;/ ,J
Fwpj;jhd g[yj;jzpf;ifapy; ico g[yj;jpy; 40 taJs;s 35
cyF ku’;fs; tsh;e;Js;sd/ epyk; rw;W rhpthf cs;sJ/nkw;go mfkiy fpuhk r/vz;/589-1 kw;Wk; 589-3 epythp
brl;oy;bkz;Lf;F Kd;g[ jpU/ehFgps;is vd;gtuhy; $kPd;
igkh!; vz;/1061?d; go mDnghfk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,J
bjhlh;ghf $kPd; igkh!; vz;/1061?d; go jpU/ehFgps;is
vd;gtUf;F gryp 1358?y; $kPd; gl;lh tH’;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/igkh!; vz;/1061?f;F jw;nghija UDR r/vz;/581-1. 3?f;F
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.6 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020gl;lh vz;/825 vd nghoehaf;fD}h; brl;oy;bkz;l; mYtyuhy;
fle;j 12/03/1962?y; efy; tH’;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/,g;g[yj;jpw;F (589-1. 3?f;F) brl;oy;bkz;l; FMB
tiuglk; ,Ue;Js;sJ/ vdnt ,t;tpdj;jpy; UDR gjpntl;ow;F
Ke;ija brl;oy;bkz;l; gjpntL kw;Wk; SLR efy; Mfpatw;iw
epy chpik bjhlh;ghd Mtzkhf fUjp. mfkiy fpuhk
r/vz;/581-1. 3?y; UDR “m” gjpntl;oy; “fhL” vd jtWjyhf
tifg;ghL bra;ag;gl;lij ePf;fp “gl;lh” vd khw;wk; bra;ayhk;
vd;gijg; gzpt[ld; bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;/,j;Jld; jw;nghija UDR fpuhk fzf;F efy;fs;.
brl;oy;bkz;l; fpuhk fzf;F efy;. SLR efy; kw;Wk;
r/vz;/589-1. 3 FMB kDjhuuJ gth; gj;jpuk;. fpuhk epUthf
mYtyhpd; mwpf;if. g[yj;jzpf;if Fwpg;g[ Mfpad
rkh;gg; pj;Js;nsd;/”
12. The translation of the relevant portion of the above Report of the
Forest Settlement Officer (FSO) reads as under:-
“I am submitting herewith a Report after conducting an Enquiry
as sought for by the District Collector in the letter 2nd cited
under reference, wherein, a Report has been called for after
conducting an Enquiry on the petition submitted by one
Tr.K.Kamarajpandian.
The land in Survey Nos.589/1 and 3, Agamalai Village,
Bodinaickanur Taluk are comprised in Zamin Patta No.825. As
per the Settlement Register, the aforesaid lands are found as
mentioned below :
S.No. Extent
Are Cent
589/1 0.28
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.7 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
589/3 13.79
As per UDR A Register it is found as mentioned below :
S.No. Extent Classification
589/1 0.11.5 Forest
589/3 5.57.5 Forest
Hence, both the aforesaid lands have been classified as per
UDR ‘A’ Register. Tr.Kamarajpandian has requested for
issuance of Patta in the name of one Mariammal for the
aforesaid land. During the land survey, 40 years old 35 numbers
of ‘Ulagu’ Trees were found to be grown in the aforesaid land.
The land was found to be slightly sloping.
Before the Land Settlement for the land in Survey Numbers
589/1 and 589/3 in the aforesaid Agamalai village, it was under
the possession of one Tr.Nagupillai as per Zamin Pymash No.
1061. In this connection, Zamin Patta in Fasli 1358 has been
issued to Tr.Nagupillai as per Zamin Pymash No.1061.
The Settlement Officer, Bodinaickanur, had issued a copy
on 12.3.1962 assigning Patta No.825 for the Paimash Number
1061 and present UDR S.No.581/1 & 3.
There is a Settlement FMB Rough Sketch for this land (S.No.
589/1 & 3). Therefore, I humbly inform that, on considering the
Settlement Register and SLR copy as previous document to the
UDR Register as the document related to land ownership
pertaining to this Forest, the classification which was made
wrongly as ‘Forest’ in the UDR ‘A’ Register with regard to the
S.No.581/1, 3 in Agamalai Village may be removed and classified
as ‘Patta’.”_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.8 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
13. It is submitted that, the 3rd Respondent however did not reclassify the
status of the subject land in the Official Land Records. The deponent has made
atleast two attempts earlier before this Court for re-classification of the forest
land into patta land. In the first instance, the deponent had filed W.P.(MD).No.
4741 of 2010 for a “Writ of Mandamus” to direct the District Collector, Theni
and the District Forest Officer, Bodinayakanur Circle, Theni, to consider the
deponent’s representation dated 13.01.2009 and to forbear the respondent to
not to disturb the peaceful possession from the deponent. The said Writ Petition
was dismissed on 30.11.2012 with the following observations:-
“2. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the third
respondent stating that the lands in question are forest lands, as
per the provision of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, and
therefore, no patta can be granted in favour of the petitioner, as
prayed for by him, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court,
in T.N.Godhvarnan vs. Union of India and others, reported in
(1997) 2 SCC 267.
3. In view of the statements made in the counter affidavit filed
on behalf of the third respondent, this Court is of the view that
the relief prayed for by the petitioner, in the present Writ
Petition, cannot be granted. Hence, the Writ Petition stands
dismissed. No costs.”
14. Long after W.P.(MD).No.4741 of 2010 was dismissed on
30.11.2012, yet another representation sent by the deponent on 06.01.2018
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.9 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
before the District Revenue Officer viz., fourth respondent herein, for
reclassifying land, measuring an extent of 28 cents in S.No.589/1, 18 cents in
S.No.589/2 and 13 Acre 79 cents in S.No.589/3 in Agamalai village,
Bodinayakanur Taluk, Theni District as patta land, which according to the
deponent was erroneously classified as “forest” land during UDR Exercise
without considering the Settlement Register and Revenue Patta issued in the
name of late Mr.M.Nagupillai, the father of late Mr.N.Jeevarathinam.
15. The deponent thus approached this Court in W.P.(MD) No.27291 of
2019 for the following relief:-
“To direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass
appropriate orders on the petitioner representation,
dated 06.01.2018, for rectifying the mistake in the
classification of the land, measuring 28 cents in S.No.
589/1, 18 cents in S.No.589/2 and 13 Acre 79 cents in
S.No.589/3 in Agamalai Village, Bodinayakanur Taluk,
Theni District, which was erroneous classified as
“Forest” during UDR scheme without considering the
Settlement Register and subsequent patta in the name of
Jeevarathinam.”
16. This Hon’ble Court in its order dated 02.01.2020 in W.P.(MD) No.
27291 of 2019 ordered as follows:
“3. Having regard to the limited scope of the prayer that is
now sought for before this court, without expressing any
opinion on merits of the petitioner’s representation, dated_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.10 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 202006.01.2018, the second respondent is directed to consider
the petitioner’s representation, dated 06.07.2018 and pass
appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with Law
after hearing the 5th respondent or anyone who is found
necessary and interested within period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
17. Pursuant to the above directions of this Hon’ble Court, the fourth
respondent/ District Revenue Officer, Theni conducted an enquiry and recorded
the submissions of the petitioner on 28.02.2020 and passed an order dated
23.03.2020 in his proceedings bearing reference in C.No.D4/3127/2020.
Relevant portion of the said proceedings reads as under:
“3/ SLR?d; goa[k;. UDR?d; goa[k;. nghoehaf;fD}h; tl;lk;.
mfkiy fpuhkk; r/vz;/589-1 “fhL” vdt[k;. r/vz;/589-2
“ghij” vdt[k;. r/vz;/589-3 “fhL” vdt[k; jhf;fyhfpa[s;s
rh;fhh; g[wk;nghf;F epy’;fspy; gjpt[ Mtz’;fspd;go gl;lh
nfhUtJ vd;gJ Vw;gi [ laJ my;y/
4/ nkYk;. njdp khtl;l murpjH; rpwg;g[ btspaPL vz;:10 ehs;:
28.05.2010?d;go jkpH;ehL tdr;rl;lk;. 1882 gphpt[ 16(2)?d;go
fhg;g[ tdkhf muR mwptpf;if bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/
nkw;fhdDk; tpgu’;fspd; mog;gilapy;. epythpj;jpl;l (SLR)
gjpntl;od;goa[k;. epyt[likg;gjpt[ nkk;ghl;Lj;jpl;l (UDR)
gjpntl;od;goa[k; kDjhuh; tHf;fpy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s mfkiy
fpuhkk; r/vz;/589-1?tp!;jPuzk; 0/11/5 bcwf;nlh;.
r/vz;/589-2?0/07/5 bcwf;nlh; kw;Wk; r/vz;/589-3?tp!;jPuzk;
5/57/5 bcwf;nlh; Mfpa g[y’;fs; “fhL” kw;Wk; “ghij” vdj;
jhf;fyhfpa[s;sjhy;. ,jpy;. epyt[likg;gjpt[ nkk;ghl;Lj;jpl;l
jtWfs; VJk; Vw;gltpy;iybad;gJ Ch;$pjkhfpd;wJ. nkYk;.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.11 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
kDjhuh; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s g[y vz;/589-1?0/11/5 bcwf;nlh; kw;Wk;
589-3?5/57/5 bcwf;nlh; Mfpaitfs; njdp khtl;l murpjH;
rpwg;g[ btspaPL vz;/10 ehs;: 12.05.2010?d;go jkpH;ehL
tdr;rl;lk;. 1882 gphpt[ 16(2)?d;go fhg;g[ tdkhf muR
mwptpf;if bra;ag;gl;L. “m” (“A” Register) gjpntl;oy;
fhg;g[tdk; vd gjpt[fs; bra;ag;gl;Ltpl;lJ/
vdnt. njdp khtl;lk;. nghoehaf;fD}h; tl;lk;. mfkiy
fpuhkk; g[y vz;/589-1. 589-2 kw;Wk; 589-3 Mfpaitfspy;
epyt[likg;gjpt[ nkk;ghl;Lj;jpl;lj;jpd;nghJ jtWfs;
VJk; ,y;iybad;w tpguj;jpid ,jd; K:yk; kDjhuUf;F
bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;/”
18. In the above Order dated 23.03.2020, the fourth respondent has stated
as follows:-
“According to the Settlement Register (SLR), Bodinayakkanoor
Taluk, Agamalai Village Survey No. 589/1 Circar poromboke 0.28
acre having been classified as “Kaadu” (Forest), Survey No. 589/2
Circar poromboke 0.18 acre having been classified as
“Paathai” (Passage), Survey No. 589/3 Circar poromboke 13.79
acres have been classified as “Kaadu” (Forest)
According to the Up-Dation of Registry (UDR) Scheme Register,
the said village Survey No. 589/1 – 0.11.5 ha having been classified
as “Circar Poromboke Kaadu” (Govt. Poromboke Forest), Survey
No. 589/2 – 0.11.5 ha having been classified as “Circar
Poromboke Paathai” (Govt. Poromboke Passage), Survey No.
589/3 – 5.57.5 ha having been classified as “Circar Poromboke
Kaadu” (Govt. Poromboke Forest), later on Survey No’s. 589/1
and 3 have been stand converted as “Reserve Forest” vide G.O.
(Ms.) No.160, dt. 26.11.2009 and the Proceedings of the Forest
Settlement Officer, Bodi, in R.C.No.59/76 dt. 2.12.2010.
The representation seeking grant of Patta in terms of Registered
documents in Circar Poromboke lands which have been classified_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.12 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020as “Kaadu” (Forest) in respect of S.No.589/1, as
“Paathai” (Passage) in respect of S.No.589/2 and as
“Kaadu” (Forest) in respect of S.No.589/3 in Agamalai Village,
Bodinayakkanoor Taluk in both SLR and UDR is not liable to be
admitted.
Moreover, they have been notified u/s. 16 (2) of Tamil Nadu Forest
Act, 1882, as “Reserve Forest” vide Theni District Gazette
Extraordinary Issue No.10 dt. 28.05.2010.
Based on the above said particulars, since the lands comprised in
Agamalai Village Survey no. 589/1 – extent 0.11.5 ha, 589/2 –
extent 0.07.5 ha and 589/3 – extent 5.57.5 ha, which are adverted
to in the Proceedings initiated by the petitioner are found to be
settled as “Kaadu” (Forest) and “Paathai” (Passage), any
instances of discrepancies occurred in UDR Scheme can be ruled
out for sure. Moreover, Survey no’s 589/1 – extent 0.11.5 ha and
589/3 – extent 5.57.5 ha, as referred to by the petitioner, stands
notified in Theni District Gazette Extraordinary Issue No.10 dt.
28.05.2010 u/s. 16 (2) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882.
Therefore, I hereby makes the petitioner known that any
inconsistencies and discrepancies have no place in respect of the
lands comprised in Agamalai Village S.No’s 589/1, 589/2, 589/3 of
Bodinayakkanoor Taluk, Theni District, during the course of the
implementation of the UDR Scheme.”
19. It is in this background, the deponent representing the petitioner has
now challenged the impugned notification in G.O.Ms.No.160 of the
Environment and Forest (F14) Department, 26.11.2009 published on
12.05.2010. The petitioner has questioned the very basis, on which the
aforesaid notification in G.O.Ms.No.160 of the Environment and Forest
(F14) Department has been issued on 26.11.2009 wherein, the subject lands
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.13 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
have been declared as “Reserved Forest” in the exercise of power conferred
under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. Relevant portion of the
impugned G.O.Ms.No.160 of the Environment and Forest (F14) Department
reads as under:-
“jkpH;ehL tdr;rl;lk;. 1882. jkpH;ehL rl;lk; (vz;/5-1882).
gphpt[ 16?d; fPH; tH’;fg;gl;Ls;s mjpfhu’;fisf;bfhz;L jkpH;ehL
MSeh; fPnH tptu ml;ltizapy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s ehw;gw[
vy;iyf;Fs; ml’;fpa epyg;gFjpia 29/09/2010 Mk; ehspypUe;Jk;
me;ehs; Kjw;bfhz;Lk; fhg;g[ tdkhf mwptpf;fpwhh;/tptu ml;ltiz
1/ khtl;lj;jpd; bgah; : njdp
2/ tl;lj;jpd; bgah; : nghoehaf;fD}h;
3/ fpuhk vz;dDk; bgaUk; : 2. ngho tlf;Fkiy
3. mfkiy
4/ td tl;lhuj;jpd; bgah; : ngho tlf;Fkiy
5/ td tl;lhuj;jpd; gug;g[ :
b~f;nlh;
ngho tlf;Fkiy 6675.62.0
fpuhkk;
mfkiy fpuhkk; 11365.18.5
bkhj;jk; 18040.80.5
20. Translated copy of G.O.Ms.No.160 of the Environment and Forest
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.14 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020(F14) Department dated 26.11.2009 reads as under:-
GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION
RESERVE FOREST NOTICE
Environment and Forest (Va-14) Department
G.O.(Ms.)No.160 Dated : 26.11.2009
The Governor of Tamil Nadu has declared the land as
Reserve Forest w.e.f. 29.09.2010 with the four boundaries in the
detailed table mentioned below as per the powers vested under Sec.
16 of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 (No.5 of 1882).
Detailed Table
1. Name of the District : Theni
2. Name of the Circle : Bodi Naickanur
3. Village Number and Name : 2, Bodi Vadakkumalai
3, Agamalai
4. Name of the Forest area : Bodi Vadakku Malai
5. Extent of the Forest area:
Hectare
Bodi Vadakkumalai Village 6675.62.0
Agamalai Village 11365.18.5
Total 18040.80.5
21. In this Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that a wrong entry
has been made about the land in the Revenue records as ‘Kaadu’ (fhL) viz.,
forest.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.15 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
22. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per Section 11 of
the 1948 Act, the Ryot i.e. farmers or cultivators can get the patta. Likewise, as
per Section 12 of the said Act the land owners can also get the patta but before
getting the patta, the said Mr.Periyakaruppa Thevar sold out the lands to Late
Mr.Nagupillai. Hence Late Mr.Nagupillai was entitled to get the patta as his
predecessor was not the zamindar but a principal landholder.
23. It is submitted that the SLR in the year 1962 prepared under the Act,
1948 clearly shows that the settlement proceedings was initiated and the subject
land was shown as a Ryotwari Punja and its owner’s name is shown as
Mr.M.Nagupillai. Hence it is submitted that Mr.M.Nagupillai was entitled to
get the patta as he was in possession and enjoyment of the same by raising
cotton trees.
24. It is submitted that the subject land is not a land at the disposal of the
Government as per Section 3 of TN Forest Act, 1882, and hence Section 4
notification, followed by declaration under Section 16 of the TN Forest Act,
1882 was not available to the Government and therefore G.O.Ms.No.160 of the
Environment and Forest (F14) Department dated 26.11.2009 is liable to be
quashed.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.16 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
25. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that if the
land holder is not entitled to get the patta under Section 12 of the 1948 Act, if
the land holder was in possession of the Ryoti land for non-agricultural
purpose, Section 19 of the 1948 Act will be applicable and not Section 19A of
the 1948 Act. It is submitted that Section 19A is applicable, which deals with
non-ryoti lands.
26. It is submitted that the 1962 SLR, shows the status of the land as
Ra.Pu. ie., Ryotwari Punja. Hence, it is submitted that it incorrect to state that
proceeding under Section 19A was pending. It is submitted that, even otherwise
under Section 19 of the Act, 1948, a person cannot be evicted if such a person
is in possession of a Ryoti land for “non-agricultural purpose”. It is submitted
that there are cotton trees in the said land and is used only for “agricultural
purpose”.
27. It is submitted that though there are no related orders as to the result
of the said pending proceedings and therefore the claim of the department is
only based on the 1969 SLR which is disputed and ambiguous. Hence, Section
4 notification on the basis of the 1969 SLR extract was in contravention to
1962 SLR extract. Hence, it is submitted that Section 4 notification of the 1948
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.17 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
Act was unsustainable.
28. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that in the
1969 SLR, proceedings under Section 19A of the 1948 Act were interpolations
and hence it’s authenticity is questionable as no proceeding or order for the
alleged rejection is produced.
29. It is further submitted that, though the petitioner’s request for patta
was rejected, since the Government initiated the proceeding under Sec.19 of the
1948 Act, which relates to the possession by the land holder. It is an admitted
fact that till today the possession is with the deponent/petitioner and has interim
order from this Court.
30. It is submitted that, without producing the rejection order under the
Act, 1948, the Government cannot claim that the subject land was taken over by
the Government by merely showing a wrong Revenue Entry. Hence, it is
submitted that it clearly shows that there is a title dispute between the parties as
the land is not vested with the Government as under the 1948 Act and only the
Civil Court only can determine the said fact.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.18 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
31. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the
land was a private ryotwari land and not a land which was available at the
disposal of the Government as defined under Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu
Forest Act 1882.
32. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that it is clear that the
subject land was never vested with the Government so as to claim the same as it
is under their disposal. Further Chapter III of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882
deals with the protection of the land at the disposal of the government not
included in ‘Reserve Forest’.
33. It is submitted that the Chapter-III of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act,
1882 is not applicable to this case. Chapter-IV deals with the control over the
forests and lands not at the disposal of Government or in which the
Government has a limited interest.
34. It is submitted that if a person is a holder of Ryot land, then the
Department can formulate guidelines for controlling the same and if still it is
required for the Government, then the Government can take over the land by
way of acquisition proceedings by paying the compensation to landholder. In
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.19 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
this case though the land is private land, no acquisition proceeding has been
made for taking it as a Reserve Forest.
35. It is submitted that the first respondent has not adhered to Section 16
of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 by making proclamation, while declaring
the subject land as a forest land, and hence it suffers illegality.
36. It is submitted that the fourth respondent failed to see that only
during the UDR the subject lands have been classified as Forest and hence the
same has to be reclassified as per the Survey Land Register (SLR), which
names Late Mr.N.Jeevarathinam as Pattadar.
37. It is submitted that even assuming without admitting that the first
respondent notified the subject lands as forest as under Section 4 of the Act,
proclamation under Section 6 of the Act and conduct the enquiry under Section
8 of the Act, all vitiated as the lands are private lands.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.20 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
38. It is submitted that the seventh respondent, during the writ petition
may interfere with the Petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
subject lands in view of the impugned gazette notification and so it becomes
necessary to restrain the seventh respondent by way of injunction otherwise the
Petitioner will be prejudiced. A reference was made to the said Report of the
Forest Settlement Officer dated 26.08.2004 addressed to the third respondent
the District Collector.
39. It is submitted that the deponent has been running from pillar to post
to vent out his grievances. However, the respondents have rejected the request
and therefore, the petitioner has been constrained to challenge the impugned
G.O.Ms.No.160 of the Environment and Forest (F14) Department, dated
26.11.2009 declaring the subject land as ‘Forest’.
40. It is submitted that the impugned Government notification is
arbitrary, illegal and against Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882.
Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition is liable to be allowed.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.21 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
41. The learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, would
submit that this Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed
on account of latches.
42. It is submitted that the definition of “Forest land” is in Section 2 of
the Forest Conservation Act 1980. The definition not only include “Forest” as
understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as “Forest” in the
Government records irrespective of the ownership. In this case, the said land
had already been classified as “Forest” as per Revenue records (Agamalai
Village “A” Register). If the petitioner had any right over the land, the
petitioner should have filed a claim petitions before the Forest Settlement
Officer during the settlement process.
43. The petitioner had merely sent representation belatedly on
13.01.2019 which served no purpose as the settlement process had already been
completed and proposal under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act 1882
was under active consideration of the Government in 2009. As per the Forest
Act, no new claims could be accepted and considered once the proposal under
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.22 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
Section 16 of the said Act had been prepared. The petitioner’s claim is belated,
unlawful and is only an afterthought.
44. It is submitted that as per orders dated 02.01.2020 of this Hon’ble
Court in W.P.(MD) No.27291 of 2019, District Revenue Officer, Theni in his
C.No.D4/3127/2020 Dated: 23.03.2020 had informed the petitioner that there
are no mistakes in UDR in respect of S. Nos. 589/1, 589/2 and 589/3 of
Agamalai village duly confirming the classification made as Forest. But the
petitioner is repeatedly representing before this Hon’ble Court to treat the said
lands are “Patta land” which is illegal.
45. It is submitted that the petitioner claiming Patta in favour of Late
Mr.N.Jeevarathinam for the said lands in S. No. 589/1, 589/2 and 589/3 of
Agamalai village itself proves that the said lands are owned by a private party
without any legal document.
46. Adding further, the learned SGP for the first respondent would
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.23 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
submit that the Lands in S.Nos.589/1, 2 & 3 of Agamalai Village originally
belonged to Bodi Zamin and was reportedly under the enjoyment of one
Chinnathayee @ Veerammal of Bodinayakkanur in Zamin Patta No. 2178 of
Pymash No:1061.
47. It is submitted that the said property was under the possession of one
Late Mr.M.Nagupillai of Agamalai Village from 07.03.1949 and Patta No.825
was issued. Consequent to the enactment of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 vide
G.O.Ms.No.3157, Revenue Department dated 09.12.1950, the entire Zamin
forest was notified under Estate Abolition Act, 1948. Thereafter, a notification
Section 26 of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 was issued in the Madurai District
Gazette on 02.06.1954.
48. It is submitted that a notice under Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu
Forest Act, 1882 is an enabling provision. It is submitted that Section 26 of the
Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 empowers the Government to frame rules to
implement the provisions of the said Act and that the Government could
exempt any person or class of persons from the operation of all or any of such
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.24 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
rules.
49. The Learned SGP for the Respondents further submitted that Late
Mr.N.Jeevarathinam’s father Late Mr.M.Nagupillai claimed that he acquired
the land by purchasing it on 07.03.1949. It is submitted that he could not have
been in possession of land from 1st July, 1945. It is submitted that the
petitioner is not entitled to get Ryotwari Patta as per Section 12 (b) (ii), second
proviso to Section 19 and Section 19-A of the Act, 1948.
50. The Learned SGP for the Respondents further submitted that Late
Mr.N.Jeevarathinam’s father Late Mr.M.Nagupillai was in possession of land
only by way of lease “Ilavu 15 vadudam” and the Petitioner had accepted the
same through his affidavit and “he paid the kist”. It is submitted that this is
admitted in Para No.3 of the affidavit. The Assistant Settlement Officer in his
proceedings in SR 230/PKM/55 declared the said land as a “Tharusu” and
thereafter as “Kaadu”.
51. It is submitted that the Revenue Settlement was introduced to deal
with the claims in the said Forest block and the same was completed in the year
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.25 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
1963 as per entries made in Settlement Land Register (SLR). Document (No:6)
produced by the petitioner in the Typed set of the documents states that the said
lands were in the name of Late Mr.N.Jeevarathinam Pillai, son of the Late
Mr.M.Nagupillai of Agamalai Village. It was however with a caveat that the
entry in the Settlement Land Register (SLR) was a provisional entry and was
not a final entry. It is submitted that the land was later notified under section 4
of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 vide G.O.Ms.No.453, Forest and
Fisheries Department dated 30.04.1977.
52. It is submitted that as per section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act,
statutory powers is vested with the State Government to issue Notification
whenever it is decides to constitute any Land as a “reserved forest” specifying
as nearly as possible the extent and limits of such lands.
53. It is submitted that the Proclamation under Section 6 of Tamil Nadu
Forest Act, 1882 was made by the then Forest Settlement Officer which was
published in the District Gazette Extraordinary dated 20.04.1978 in Tamil and
in English on 14.06.1978.
54. It is submitted that, after the issuance of a notification under Section
6, no right can be acquired over the Land comprised in such notification except
by under a grant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.26 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
the Government or some person in whom such right was vested when the
notification was issued. It is submitted that no fresh clearing for cultivation or
for any other purpose can be made in such land except in accordance with such
rule as may be made by the State Government in this behalf.
55. It is submitted that the effect of such notification is that new rights
cease to accrue and the State Government acquires rights over the notified land.
56. It is submitted that the Forest Settlement Officer, Bodi had received
and disposed the claims during the Settlement period and thereafter sent revised
proposal under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 vide District
Forest Officer, Theni reference No:1351/1994 D1 dated 25.05.1999. It is
submitted that pursuant to the above, the Government had issued the impugned
notification vide G.O.Ms.No.160 of the Environment and Forest (F14)
Department dated 26.11.2009 declaring an extent of 18040-80-5 hectares of
Land in Bodi North Hills Forest Block, Theni District as Reserved Forest with
effect on and from 29.09.2010 under section 16 of the said Act, duly following
the provisions of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882.
57. It is submitted that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.160 of the
Environment and Forest (F14) Department dated 26.11.2009 was also
published in Theni District Gazette Extra ordinary bulletin No: 5 dated
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.27 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
12.05.2010.
58. It is submitted that, the lands to the extent of 0.11.5 hectares in
S.No:589/1 and the extent of 5.57.5 hectares in S.No:589/3 of Agamalai
village had been included in the total extent of Lands declared as Reserved
Forest.
59. It is submitted that the Registered Sale Agreement dated 01.08.2008
is said to be in the name of the wife of the petitioner. The Power of Attorney is
dated 23.12.2008 executed by Late Mr.N.Jeevarathinam as the owner of the
said property. It is submitted that both the documents are illegal and cannot be
sustained at any cost, since they had been made after the lands were notified
under Section 4 (i.e. after 30.04.1977) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882.
Moreover, following the declaration of the said land as Reserved Forests,
action also was initiated to vacate the possession of the land by Forest Range
Officer, Bodi and to bring it under the control of Forest Department.
60. It is submitted that the status of the said land in S.No.589/1 and S.No.
589/3 of Agamalai Village is “Forest” as per ‘A’ Register of Agamalai village
maintained by the Revenue Department. Though the petitioner has no right over
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.28 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
the notified land, he made a representation dated 31.01.2009 requesting to
reclassify the said land and to issue patta in the name of original owner for his
personal gain. Moreover, the petitioner had filed a writ petition seeking
direction to consider the representation and forbearing the respondents not to
disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 4741 of
2010. The Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High court in its order dated
30.11.2012 had dismissed this Writ petition.
61. It is submitted that the so called original owner namely Late
Mr.M.Nagupillai or his son Late Mr.N.Jeevarathinam did not claim any right
over the Land as pattadar during the Revenue Settlement proceeding, which
was completed in the year 1963. It is submitted that they failed to raise any
objection to classification of the lands as ‘Forest Land’ in revenue records and
to prove the lands were under his or their enjoyment during the Forest
Settlement process, which was completed in the year 1998.
62. It is submitted that despite the orders of Hon’ble Court dated
30.11.2012, the Department used to send representation again and again for the
reclassification of the said Land and for the issuance of patta in favour of the
original owners. The petitioner had approached this Hon’ble Court in his
representation dated 06.01.2018 in WP (MD) No. 27291 of 2019. In his
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.29 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
representation dated 06.01.2018, the petitioner had requested the District
Revenue Officer, Theni District to rectify the mistake in the classification of the
Land, measuring 28 cents in S.No.589/1, 18 cents in S.No.589/2 and 13 Acre
79 cents in S.No.589/3 in Agamalai Village, which was erroneously classified
as “Forest” during UDR scheme without considering the Settlement Register
and subsequent to issue patta in the name of Later Mr.N.Jeevarathinam. This
Court in its order dated 02.01.2020 directed the District Revenue Officer to
consider the representations of the Petition and pass appropriate orders on
merits and in accordance with law.
63. It is submitted that on receipt of such directions of this Hon’ble court,
the District Revenue officer, Theni had conducted hearing on 28.02.2020 and
recorded the Statement of the deponent. The Forest Settlement Officer and
Forest officials were also present during the said enquiry. After examining the
statement of the deponent and report of the Forest Settlement Officer, Bodi
dated 28.02.2020 with reference to the entries in Settlement Land Register
(SLR) and updated – Land Development Register (UDR) of Agamalai village,
the District Revenue officer, Theni had come to a conclusion that the
classification of the lands were correct.
64. It is submitted that the petitioner had been informed in
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.30 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
C.No.D4/3127/2020 dated: 23.03.2020 of the District Revenue Officer, Theni,
there were no mistakes in UDR of S.No.589/1, S.No.589/2 and S.No.589/3 of
Agamalai Village, Bodinayakkanur Taluk, Theni District. As per Section 3 of
Tamil Nadu Forest Act 1882, the Government may constitute any land at the
disposal of Government a Reserved Forests.
65. It is submitted that the seventh respondent has taken possession of the
said lands to the Government on 20.06.2020 only after giving due response to
the petitioner’s representation dated 06.01.2010, by the District Revenue
Officer, Theni in his C.No.D4/3127/2020 dated 23.03.2020 as directed by this
Court in W.P. (MD) No.27291/2019 vide order dated 02.01.2020.
66. It is submitted that according to the provisions of the Forest
Conservation Act 1980, no forest land can be utilized for non-foresty purpose
without the prior permission of the Government of India. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the order dated 07.05.1999 in I.A.No.418 in W.P.(C)No.
202/1995 issued that no patta should be granted in any of forest land and no
encroachment in forest land should be regularized. Therefore, it is clear that
issue of patta on forest land, which will be against the provisions of the Forest
Conservation Act 1980, the Tamil Nadu Forest Act 1882 and orders of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.31 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
67. It is submitted that there is absolutely no merit in the Writ Petition
and the same is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
68. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
69. Admittedly, the lands in S.No.589/1, S.No.589/2 and S.No.589/3 of
Agamalai Village were purchased by Late Mr.M.Nagupillai of Agamalai
Village, from Chinnathayi alias Veerammal and Periyakaruppa Thevar on
07.03.1949 and 10.03.1949 respectively, as mentioned elsewhere. After
purchase of the land Late Mr.M.Nagupillai, was also issued Patta No.825.
70. The sale was made after the said Estate Abolition Act, 1948 was
passed but before it was notified and came into force on 19.04.1948. The sale
itself was made with the view to defeat the rights of the beneficiary and the
Government under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Estate Abolition Act,
1948.
71. After G.O.Ms. No. 3157 of the Revenue Department dated
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.32 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
09.12.1950 was issued under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act 1948,
entire land in Zamin of Bodinayakkanur stood vested with the Government of
Tamil Nadu.
72. It is evident that the above Sale Deeds dated 10.03.1949 and
7.03.1949 were executed few days before the Estate Abolition Act, 1948, as the
said Act came into force on 19.04.1949.
73. Consequent to the enactment of the Estate Abolition Act 1948, entire
Zamin forests were notified under Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act
1882 in Madurai District Gazette on 02.06.1954. Section 26 is an enabling
section to empower the Government to frame rules to implement the provisions
of the Act. Meanwhile, Revenue settlement proceedings started and were
completed in the year 1963. The name of Late Mr.N.Jeevarathinam Pillai of
Agamalai Village was shown as owner of lands as the legal heir of Late
M.Nagupillai in the Settlement Register dated 12.03.1962.
74. The extract of the Settlement Register dated 12.03.1962 filed before
this Court indicate that only a provisional entry was made in the Survey Land
Register (SLR) in the name of Late Mr.M.Nagupillai and Late
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.33 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
Mr.N.Jeevarathinam. However, no patta was issued in the name of Late
Mr.N.Jeevarathinam Pillai or his deceased father Late Mr.M.Nagupillai so as to
have any claim over the said lands as a Ryot in the capacity as a “land holder”.
75. Since the land came under the purview of the Government with effect
from 09.12.1950 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, Mr.M.Nagupillai ought to have applied
for Patta under Section 12(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.
76. As per Section 12(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, all lands which were properly included,
or which ought to have been properly included, in the holding of a ryot, which
were acquired by the landholder by purchase, exchange or gift, which were
cultivated by the landholder himself or by his own servants or by hired labour,
with his own or hired stock in the ordinary course of husbandry and was in
direct and continuous possession of the lands from 01.07.1945 are entitled to
Ryotwari Patta.
77. Section 12(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, reads as under:-
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.34 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020“12. Lands in Zamindari estate in which landholder is entitled to
ryotwari patta.-
(a)
(b) (i) ….
(b) (ii) all lands which were properly included, or which ought to
have been properly included, in the holding of a ryot and which
have been acquired by the landholder by purchase, exchange or gift,
but not including purchase at a sale for arrears of rent, provided that
the landholder has cultivated such lands himself, by his own
servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock in the
ordinary course of husbandry from the 1st day of July 1945 and
has been in direct and continuous possession of such lands from
that date;
(b) (iii) ….”
78. It appears no such claims were sanctioned by the concerned
authorities during the Revenue Settlement Process. This is evident from the
SLR Extract of 1969 and the claims made towards patta over the subject lands
in S.No.589/1 and S.No.589/3 were rejected. The contentions of the deponent
regarding interpolations in the SLR extract of 1969 and non-submission of
rejection order are in the nature of a fishing expedition. It cannot be
entertained at this juncture, after a delay of 55 years. The Court has to presume
the legality of Government Records and Orders. Unless, contrary evidence is
shown, onus cannot be shifted to the respondent.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.35 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
79. As per entries in Settlement “A Register” the lands have been
classified as “Forest” and “Path” without the title of ownership in favour of any
private individuals.
80. As far as the facts of the present case is concerned, no such evidence
rebutting the case of the Government was adduced by the deponent. The Court
is not willing to unsettle the existing state of affairs at this distant point of time
merely on conjectures and surmises, while exercising its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
81. That apart, as per Section 3 of the said Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882,
the Government may constitute any land at the disposal of Government as
“Reserved Forests”. In Section 3, two kinds of lands are mentioned which
could be declared as Reserved Forests, they are (1) Forest Land and (2)
Wasteland. The lands in S.No.589/1, S.No.589/2 and S.No.589/3 of Agamalai
Village have been classified as Poramboke Forest and path in Revenue
Settlement Records without ownership of the land.
82. Thus, the lands were at the disposal of the Government and the same
is legal. The lands in various survey Numbers in Zamin of Bodinayakkanur
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.36 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
were notified under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. The works
of Forest Settlement are said to have started in the year 1978 and were
completed in the year 1998.
83. Further, as per Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 transfer
between the proclamation of the land under Section 6 and notification under
Section 16 of the Act would be barred under law. No rights over the land will
accrue. Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 reads as under:-
“7. During the interval between the publication of such
proclamation and the date fixed by the notification under
section 16, no right shall be acquired in or over the land
included in such proclamation, except under a grant or
contract in writing made or entered into by, or on behalf
of the Government, or by, or on behalf of, some person
in whom such right, or power to create the same, was
vested when the proclamation was published, or by
succession from such person; and no fresh clearings for
cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made on
such land. No patta shall, without the previous sanction
of the 1 [Board of Revenue], be granted on behalf of
Government in such land, and every patta granted
without such sanction shall be null and void. Nothing in
this section shall be deemed to prohibit any act done
with the permission in writing of the Forest-settlement-
officer”.
84. Further, the Government had issued the notification declaring an
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.37 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
extent of 18040-80-5 Ha., of land in Bodi North Hills Forest Block, Theni
District as Reserved Forests with effect on and from 29.09.2010 under Section
16 of the said Act, duly following the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act
1882 vide G.O. Ms. No. 160 Environment and Forests (FR-14) Department,
Dated: 26.11.2009 which had been also published in Theni District Gazette
Special Bulletin No. 5 Dated 12.05.2010. Hence, the so called Sale Agreement
executed on 01.08.2008 and the Power of Attorney obtained 23.12.2008 are
illegal and not enforceable. As such, the petitioner or deponent have no right to
send representations and even to file cases before the Hon’ble Courts in respect
of said lands.
85. As such, there were no such claims from any persons claiming to be
the owners of the land. No person was seeking any right over the said lands
during the Process of Revenue and Forest Settlement. Only, one Mariammal,
who is said to be the wife of the deponent is said to have entered into a
registered Sale Agreement on 01.08.2008 with Late Mr.N.Jeevarathinam
S/o.Late Mr.M.Nagupillai.
86. Later the deponent had obtained a Power of Attorney on 23.12.2008
from Late Mr.N.Jeevarathinam S/o. Late Mr.M.Nagupillai, who claimed to be
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.38 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
the owner of the lands.
87. Both the documents have been made after the land in question were
notified under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 i.e., after
30.04.1977 and a proclamation was made under Section 6 was in Tamil on
20.04.1978 and in English on 14.06.1978. The effect of proclamation issued
under Section 6 is that new rights cease to accrue and the State Government
acquires rights over the notified land. The notified land comprised therein
become a Reserved Forests after notifications are issued in that behalf.
88. Therefore, the deponent has claimed rights over the land based on the
aforesaid Sale Agreement dated 01.08.2008 for Late Mr.N.Jeevarathinam S/o.
Late Mr.M.Nagupillai executed in favour of the deponent’s wife and thereafter
on the strength of the Power of Attorney dated 23.12.2008 in favour of the
Petitioner. It was impermissible as the lands never stood vested either with Late
Mr.M.Nagupillai or his son, Late Mr.N.Jeevarathinam.
89. That apart, the petitioner claims to have obtained another Power of
Attorney from, one J.Rajalakshmi, claiming to be the wife of deceased
Mr.N.Jeevarathinam, son of Late Mr.M.Nagupillai. However, no documents
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.39 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
have also been filed to substantiate that the said donor Mrs.J.Rajalakshmi is
indeed the wife of the deceased Mr.N.Jeevarathinam. Thus, the present writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
90. Further, as directed by this Hon’ble Court vide it’s order dated
02.01.2020, the District Revenue Officer, Theni had also examined the relevant
records and had issued orders dated 23.03.2020 in his proceedings C.No.
D4/3127/2020 stating that there are no mistakes in classification of S.No.589/1,
S.No.589/2 and S.No.589/3 of Agamalai Village as “Forest” and “Path”. The
seventh Respondent also had resumed and taken possession of the said lands to
the Government on 20.06.2020 duly following the procedures as per law, which
was delayed in the past years due to litigation pending before the Court.
91. That apart, there are serious questions raised by the Government, the
respondent, regarding the veracity of the Sale Agreement as well as also the
Power of Attorney. Therefore, even on this ground, the writ petition filed in the
capacity of Power of Attorney Holder, the deceased N.Jeevarathinam is liable
to be dismissed.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.40 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
92. In the light of the above reasons, this Writ Petition is liable to be
dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Connected Writ
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
20.08.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
apd/arb
To
1.The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Environment and Forest Department,
St. George Fort, Chennai.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
St. George Fort, Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Theni District.
4.The District Revenue Officer,
Theni District.
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Uthamapalayam Division,
Theni District.
6.The Thasildhar,
Bodinayakkanur Taluk,
Theni District.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.41 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
7.The District Forest Officer,
Theni District.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.42 of 43
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
Pre-delivery order in
W.P.(MD)No.7995 of 2020
20.08.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.43 of 43