Madras High Court
Ikkarai Boluvampatti Panchayat vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 November, 2014
Equivalent citations: AIR 2015 MADRAS 63
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.Sathyanarayanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.11.2014 CORAM The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN W.A.No.1542 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 Ikkarai Boluvampatti Panchayat Rep. By its President, A.Sadanandam. .. Appellant vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Secretary to Government, (Forest Department), Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, Coimbatore District. 3.The District Forest Officer, Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore. .. Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 25.11.2013 passed in W.P.No.8762 of 2007 on the file of this Court. For Appellant : Mr.K.S.Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.K.Subrramanian Spl.G.P. (Forest) for RR1 and 3 : Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy, Govt. Pleader for R-2 * * * * * J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice) The Ikkarai Boluvampatti Panchayat, Coimbatore District, filed W.P.No.8762 of 2007 seeking to assail the order dated 25.01.2007 passed by the District Forest Officer (DFO) so as to forbear him from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over five acres of land in Ikkarai Boluvampatti Forest Range-II, adjoining the village.
2.The land originally belonged to forest department and was later stated to have been handed over to the Panchayat, allegedly after de-reserving it from the forest department as per G.O. Ms.No.110 (Agriculture Department) dated 17.11.1953. The Panchayat was put in possession of the land by the revenue department. A further G.O. Ms.No.1569, dated 26.05.1970 was issued leasing out these five acres of land at Rs.20/- per acre for a period of 25 years and the Panchayat started paying the lease amount as required by the Government of Tamil Nadu, though no formal lease agreement was signed. The case of the Panchayat is that the land, after de-reservation, was already handed over to it by G.O. Ms.110, dated 17.11.1953 and the subsequent action was superfluous, though the Panchayat continued to pay the lease amount. It is on 25.01.2007 that the order challenged in the writ petition was passed to take over possession of the land occupied by the Panchayat.
3.The writ petition was, however, dismissed by the impugned order dated 25.11.2013 predicated on the reasoning that the land in question is a reserved forest and the lease expired on 31.03.1996. The renewal of the lease had been applied for by the Panchayat for the benefit of the pilgrims, but the documents on record could not establish either the renewal of the lease or a proper request for the same, as the letter stated to have enclosed the demand draft for lease amount bore no stamp. It is this order of the learned Single Judge which is assailed before us.
4.Along with the appeal, the appellant has filed certain documents from serial nos.20 to 26 of the typed set, which are post decision in the impugned writ petition. No leave has been sought to place these on record and thus, strictly speaking, we are not required to consider them. Be that as it may, we have still perused those documents and the memorandum dated 03.07.2014 of the District Collector with copies marked to other authorities including the D.F.O. refers to a petition being submitted by the appellant-Panchayat to renew the lease in respect of the land in question. The Tahsildar has been asked to conduct enquiry and field survey.
5.Learned counsel for the third respondent / D.F.O. states that under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the forest land cannot be used for non-forest purposes except with the prior approval of the Central Government (Section 2 read with Rule 6 of the Forest Conservation Rules, 2003). He submits that no proposal has yet been received from the State Government. Whatever may have been the position of the land prior to the commencement of that Act, once the Act came into force, the said procedure would be applicable.
6.The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the third respondent on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Balakrishnan Nambiar vs. State of Karnataka, CDJ 2011 SC 499, is apposite, as this very issue has been discussed by referring to the earlier judgment in Nature Lovers Movement vs. State of Kerala, CDJ 2009 SC 670 :: (2009) 5 SCC 373. We may consider it appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment in K.Balakrishnan's case, supra:
10.After making these observations, a specific direction has been issued, to all the State Governments, to ensure that all ongoing non-forest activity within any forest, without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith. It was emphasised that every State Government must ensure total cessation of all nonforestal activities forthwith. Mr.Vishwanathan had also submitted that since the lease has been granted prior to the operation of the 1980 Act and the land has been declared as dereserved at the time of the grant of the lease, the lease cannot be automatically cancelled upon promulgation of the 1980 Act. In our opinion, the aforesaid of the learned counsel is also no longer res integra as it has been answered in the case of Nature Lovers Movement vs. State of Kerala & Ors., ((2009) 5 SCC 373).
11.Upon consideration of the earlier cases pertaining to the conservation of forests in India, this Court culled out certain principles. We may, however, notice only the observations made in Paragraphs 47 and 48, which are as under:-
47. The ratio of the above noted judgments is that the 1980 Act is applicable to all forests irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof and after 25-10-1980 i.e. the date of enforcement of the 1980 Act, no State Government or other authority can pass an order or give a direction for dereservation of reserved forest or any portion thereof or permit use of any forest land or any portion thereof for any non-forest purpose or grant any lease, etc. in respect of forest land to any private person or any authority, corporation, agency or organisation which is not owned, managed or controlled by the Government.
48.Another principle which emerges from these judgments is that even if any forest land or any portion thereof has been used for non-forest purpose, like undertaking of mining activity for a particular length of time, prior to the enforcement of the 1980 Act, the tenure of such activity cannot be extended by way of renewal of lease or otherwise after 25-10-1980 without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government.
7.Thus, the question of putting the land to non-forest use in the forest area is no more res integra, apart from the fact that the appellant has no inherit right for renewal of lease / licence in the area and thus, the impugned order cannot be faulted with.
8.We are, however, of the view that the matter does not rest at this, in view of the subsequent development as per the memorandum dated 03.07.2014 of the District Collector / the second respondent. It appears that the Panchayat may not have been properly advised to merely seek renewal of lease in view of the provisions of the said Act, but then, the second respondent ought to have been aware of it. In any case, the second respondent has asked the Tahsildar to conduct enquiry and field survey, whereafter the matter would have to be examined as to whether the State Government would be desirous of forwarding the proposal to the Central Government in terms of the provisions referred to aforesaid. We call upon the second respondent to take a decision on this account within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. If the proposal is forwarded in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, then the third respondent would process the same as per the provisions of the said Act.
9.We, thus, dismiss the writ appeal, but subject to the directions issued by us in view of the subsequent development. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 also stands dismissed.
(S.K.K.,C.J.) (M.S.N.,J.) 26.11.2014 Index : Yes Internet : Yes sra To
1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, (Forest Department), Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The District Collector, Coimbatore District.
3.The District Forest Officer, Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore.
The Hon'ble Chief Justice
AND M.Sathyanarayanan, J.
(sra)
W.A.No.1542 of 2014
26.11.2014