Madras High Court
R.S.Padma vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 18 August, 2022
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
W.P(MD)No.8620 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
W.P(MD)No.8620 of 2017 and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.6540 & 8427 of 2017
R.S.Padma ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Environment and Forests Department,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The District Forest Officer,
Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ramanathapuram.
5.The Tahsildar,
Rameshwaram.
Ramanathapuram District.
6.The Special Tahsildar cum
Forest Settlement Officer,
[Forest Settlement],
Sivagangai. ... Respondents
Page No.1 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8620 of 2017
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records of the impugned Gazette Notification in G.O.Ms.No.62,
Environment and Forests (FR14) dated 09.06.2016 published in the State
Gazette No.36 dated 07.09.2016 issued by the first respondent herein in
respect of the property situated in S.No.644/12, Pamban Village,
Rameswaram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Dr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad
for M/s.Chettinad Legal Solutions
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran,
Additional Advocate General
(Coordination)
Assisted by Mr.R.Suresh Kumar,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner as a Power of Attorney of one Mrs.RS.Padma, filed this petition seeking to quash G.O.Ms.No.62 Environment and Forests [FR14] dated 09.06.2016 published in the State Gazette No.36 dated 07.09.2016 issued by the first respondent in respect of the property situated in S.No.644/12, Pamban Village, Rameswaram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
Page No.2 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8620 of 2017
2.The contention of the petitioner is that the property situated in S.No.644/12 at Pamban Village, Rameswaram Taluk to an extent of 3.65.0 hectares originally belong to petitioner's father, namely, Mr.Raja Shanmugarajeshwara Sethupathi @ Naganatha Sethupathy. The questioned property as well as some adjacent properties in S.Nos.688, 689, 710/2, 711, 712 were released to petitioner's mother R.S.Samathamani Nachiyar by a registered document in Doc.No.2649/1949 dated 06.09.1949. In the year 1989, the petitioner's mother executed a Will in petitioner's favour and her nephew by a registered document in Doc.No.51/1989 dated 15.02.1989. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother approached the authorities to get patta for the above said lands, gave representation on 23.01.1991 and the 5th respondent recommended the same to the 4th respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A6/1496/92 dated 15.07.1992 to issue patta. But the same was kept pending for several years. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's mother died in the year 1993. The revenue documents, namely, 10(1) register, SLR patta reflects the name of petitioner's mother till date. Later, the petitioner came to know that the property in S.No.644/12 is recorded in Taluk Office records as “Forest Department Land”. Hence, the petitioner applied to the authorities concerned to get patta in her name. This Page No.3 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8620 of 2017 being so, to her shock and surprise the petitioner came to know that the property was declared as Reserve Forest and the impugned gazette notification issued. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the same by stating that the gazette notification issued is without following the procedures contemplated under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”].
3.As per Section 4 of the Act, the gazette notification, the extent of land in survey numbers with boundaries, the Forest Settlement Officer for enquiry will be informed. Thereafter, following Section 6 of the Act, the Forest Settlement Officer, to publish in the official gazette in the District headquarters where the property is situated and also such notification to be made as a proclamation in the neighbourhood town and villages. The substance of Section 4 of the Act to be notified, and everything to be conducted within a specified period. Further, the Forest Settlement Officer to serve notice on every known or reputed owner or occupier of any land included in or adjoining, the land proposed to be constituted as reserve forest. But in this case, nothing was followed. The petitioner gave requisition to the authorities concerned to transfer the revenue records in her Page No.4 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8620 of 2017 name, meanwhile one Kumaran Sethupathy filed a civil suit in O.S.No. 35/2000 claiming some property and the same was dismissed on 03.01.2011. Against which, appeal was preferred in A.S.No.10/2011 and the same is pending before the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram. The respondents 2, 3 and 5 are the parties to the civil suit. Thus, without following the provisions in Section 6(d) of the Act, issuance of impugned notice is highly arbitrary. Further, Sections 6, 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the Act have not been followed.
4.The petitioner in support of her contention filed a typed set of papers listing settlement made by Raja Shanmugarajeshwara Sethupathi, copy of the will, proceedings of the 5th respondent recommending for issuance of patta, proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.E4/4594/2011 dated 04.06.2011 giving details about the occupants in various survey numbers including S.No.644/12 and the possibility of removal of the occupiers would cause law and order issues and recommended for exclusion of such lands, copy of 10(1) register, and the power of attorney produced. Page No.5 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8620 of 2017
5.The third respondent District Forest Officer filed a detailed counter affidavit along with the vacate stay petition. It is submitted that the petitioner by her own admission confirms that her mother gave representation to the 5th respondent to get patta for the said land on 23.01.1991 which would clearly prove that the petitioner's parents had no valid document as on 23.01.1991. Though the petitioner relied upon the recommendation made by the 5th respondent to the 4th respondent, he had not produced any order passed thereafter based on the recommendation. The Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram in his letter No.A2/1707/2017 dated 05.04.2017 had clearly stated that the land belongs to Forest Department as on date as per the revenue records. Further, vide G.O.Ms.No.202 Revenue Department dated 13.01.1961, the property in S.No.644/12 along with some adjacent survey numbers were transferred to the Forest Department to an extent of 200.24 acres and thereafter, entries have been effected in the revenue and forest records. The Forest Department after taking possession of these lands, raised many plantations, even during 2015-2016, planting works had been done in S.F.No.644/12 under Massive Tree Planting Programme. Further, as per the National Forest Policy, 1988 one third of our land has to be brought under forest cover, action was taken to declare Page No.6 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8620 of 2017 Thangachimadam Forest Block as Reserve Forest, S.No.644/12 is one of the survey numbers. Accordingly, necessary proposals were prepared and sent to the District Collector, Ramanathapuram as per Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 since 1988. But the District Collector, Ramanathapuram/second respondent herein not recommended any other proposals by stating that there was no other reserve forest nearby, human dwellings exists around the proposed land, no such important trees and wild life exists and public are using certain portions as road and these lands would be needed for further developmental activities in future since these lands are near to the National Highway and Railway line. But the same is against the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P(C).No.202 of 1996. When the same was reiterated, the second respondent recommended the proposal for the Notification under Section 4 of the Act vide his letter No.34127/14 B3 dated 23.01.2015.
6.After scrutiny of records, it was ordered by the Government of Tamil Nadu through the impugned Government Order that it was intended Thangachimadam Forest Block for declaration of Reserved Forest under Section 4 of the Act. Hence, the petitioner's contention that the impugned Page No.7 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8620 of 2017 notification was issued without following the second respondent's recommendation is erroneous. It is further stated that the provisions of Section 6 of the Act was also followed by the first respondent before issuing the impugned notification. Further, the petitioner stated that the impugned notification was published by the first respondent without following the provisions under Sections 6, 10, 11, 13 and 14, for which, the third respondent stated that so far notification under Section 4 of the Act was published and the provisions of Sections 6, 10, 11, 13 and 14 will be followed only after the publication of proclamation notification under Section 6 of the Act.
7.It is stated that the land in S.No.644/12 originally belongs to the Revenue Department, of which an extent of 200.24 acres of land was transferred to Forest Department for extension of casuarina plantations. It is stated by the petitioner that the revenue document, i.e. 10(1) register reflects her mother's name till date, representation was given by her mother on 23.01.1991 and the 5th respondent recommended to the 4th respondent for issuance of patta. But it is clear from the letter No.1707/2017 A2 dated 05.04.2017 given by the 5th respondent that no such changes were done. Page No.8 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8620 of 2017 However, the petitioner managed to get a computer generated document, i.e. 10(1) patta in her favour. Under this circumstances, the 4th respondent directed to cancel the said computer generated document as per the records available with the Rameswaram Taluk Office as well as Revenue Divsiional Office, Ramanathapuram vide District Forest Officer, Ramanathapuram letter NO.2957/2007 D dated 09.05.2017.
8.The National Highways Department for the improvement of Pamban-Rameswaram Highways road acquired 10.50 acres of forest land in S.No.644/2. Thus, following the procedures contemplated in the Tamil Nadu Forest Act the lands were acquired and G.O.Ms.No.62 Environment and Forests [FR14] Department dated 09.06.2016 was issued. The creation of forest and sanctuary is for maintaining the ecological balance to save the nature from distress. Admittedly, the petitioner had no patta in her favour, she is only an occupier over a period of time and no occupier can have any legal right when the lands are acquired by the Government for forest purpose. Hence, he strongly opposed and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Page No.9 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8620 of 2017
9.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials placed on record, it is seen that as early as 13.01.1961 G.O.Ms.No.202 Revenue Department was issued wherein sanction is accorded to transfer of land measuring an extent of 200 acres 24 cents in Thangachimadam Village, Ramanathapuram District to the forest Department, in which S.No.644/12 forms part of the transferred land. After transfer of the lands, the Forest Department were planting trees to avoid soil erosion both by air and water. Rameswaram is an island precariously situated very near to Srilanka and the ecology in Gulf of Mannar where endangered species are available to be protected. To stop deforestation, this exercise is necessary. Hence, as early as in the year 1979, 10.50 acres of lands in S.No.644/2 was transferred to National Highways Department for improvement of Pamban-Rameswaram National Highways since it is required for the national purpose. The District Forest Officer, Ramnad cum Sivagangagi District handed over these lands to Junior Engineer, National Highways, Rameswaram. The District Collector, Rameswaram by his communication dated 23.01.2015 informed that after issuance of Section 4 Notification, the District Revenue Officer on 07.01.2015 along with Tahsildar, Deputy Tahsildar, Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer conducted a joint physical inspection in S.Nos. Page No.10 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8620 of 2017 644/1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13, S.Nos.656/2, 3, 4, 5, 7 & 9. The Notification under Section 4 have been complied with and the inspection report of the District Revenue Officer reflects the occupiers in the land which are to be removed.
10.The Tahsildar, Rameswaram written a letter to the Sub-Registrar, Rameswaram on 05.04.2017 informing that no sale deed to be registered and no patta to be transferred with regard to the lands in S.No.644/12. The Government informed the District Forest Officer, who in turn informed the Tahsildar, Rameswaram on 09.05.2017 about the encroachments in S.No. 644/12. Further, he also referred to the persons claiming right over the property using forged documents, the lands are valued several crores and to misappropriate the property, all means are being followed. The 10(1) patta is a temporary one which is subject to verification and confirmation by the revenue authorities. In this case, the issuance of patta was found to be not proper. It is seen from the forest records and documents produced by the Department right from 1961, the acquisition proceedings were initiated and had taken almost 50 to 55 years for the Forest Department to travel this extent of completing the Section 4 procedure. If the petitioner or any Page No.11 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8620 of 2017 occupier get aggrieved, they have to approach the Forest Settlement Officer, produce the relevant documents and to assert their right over the land. Thereafter, on considering the representation and the materials produced, the Forest Settlement Officer can take a decision. Further, there is an appeal provision available, wherein appeal can be filed against the order of the Forest Settlement Officer and till the time of proclamation, the petitioner or any person who were aggrieved can approach the appropriate authorities. There are clear procedures contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. Without following the procedures contemplated and approaching the authorities concerned, the petitioner filed this writ petition which cannot be entertained. If the petitioner feels that there is merits in her contention, it is for the petitioner to approach the appropriate authorities for redressal of her grievances.
11.In view of the above, the impugned Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.62, Environment and Forests (FR14) dated 09.06.2016 is proper. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Page No.12 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8620 of 2017
12.This Writ Petition lacks merit for consideration and the same is dismissed, accordingly. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
18.08.2022 Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No mpk/cse Page No.13 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8620 of 2017 To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Environment and Forests Department, Chennai.
2.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram.
3.The District Forest Officer, Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram.
5.The Tahsildar, Rameshwaram.
Ramanathapuram District.
6.The Special Tahsildar cum Forest Settlement Officer, [Forest Settlement], Sivagangai.
Page No.14 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8620 of 2017 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
mpk/cse W.P(MD)No.8620 of 2017 18.08.2022 Page No.15 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis