Madras High Court
P.Gopi vs The Conservator Of Forest on 21 November, 2016
Author: M.Govindaraj
Bench: M.Govindaraj
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.11.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
W.P.(MD)No.13192 of 2009
P.Gopi .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Conservator of Forest,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2. The District Forest Officer,
Velunachiar Compound,
Dindigul, Dindigul District.
3. The Forest Range Officer,
Sirumalai Pudur,
Dindigul, Dindigul District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
respondents resulting in the second respondent's impugned order dated
26.10.2009 served on 23.11.2009 passed in Se.Mu.Order.No.7292/2006/D, and
quash the same and consequently direction directing the respondents to permit
the petitioner to remove and transport the cutting materials in respect of
all non-schedule timbers, fire woods, saw timber, saw sizers, cottons and all
kinds of logs, sizes extends pursuant to the cutting order dated 04/01/2007
and 06/01/2007 issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondent and also standing of non-
schedule items of shade trees lying on the land bearing survey No.753/1B at
Poonjolai Estate, Sirumalai Puthur Village, Dindigul District in view of the
notification and clarification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu Forest
and Fisheries Department letter No.6679/FRV/87-7, dated 01.09.1987, and order
of the Civil Court passed in I.A.No.187 of 2008, dated 03.06.2008 thereby
enabling the petitioner to plant lemon, coffee, Banana, Orange, Pepper
including Silver Oak Trees and Mango Trees and other agricultural products.
!For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Venkatesan
^For Respondents : Mr.S.Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
:ORDER
Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent in his proceedings in Se.Mu.Order No.7292/2006/B, dated 26.10.2009 and consequently for a direction to the respondents to permit him to remove and transport the materials upon non-schedule timber, fire woods, saw timber, saw sizers, cottons and all kinds of logs, pursuant to the cutting orders dated 04.01.2007 and 06.01.2007 from Survey No.753/1B at Poonjolai Estate, Sirumalai Puthur Village, Dindigul District, this Writ petition has been filed.
2.The Writ petitioner claimed that he and his wife are the owners of the land comprising in Survey No.753/1B to an extent of 65 acres 7 cents, which was purchased from one G.Pooranalingam, Son of Ganapathiya Pillai, vide document No.3636/99, registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Dindigul, on 06.12.1999. The said land in Survey No.753/1B was declared as a Ryoti land by the orders of the Principal Bench of this Court in W.P.No.3000 of 1977, dated 22.02.1980 and W.P.No.4139 of 1980 dated 09.09.1986. Accordingly, the petitioner was entitled to cut the non-schedule trees from his land. As per Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968, no person shall move timber into or from, or within the State by land, water or air, unless such timber is accompanied by the permit prescribed therefor under Rule 4. All the above said Rules speak about Form-I permit and Form-II permit and the same have to be issued by the District Forest Officer/ second respondent.
3.Following the application made by the Writ petitioner, the second respondent in his letter in Na.Ka.No.7292/2006, dated 04.01.2007, directed the petitioner to contact the third respondent herein/Forest Ranger, Sirumalai Pudur. The third respondent/Forest Range officer, had accorded permission to cut and remove the trees from Survey No.753/1B, Sirumalaiputhur Village on certain conditions. The first condition was that the trees should be cut in the presence of the third respondent/Forest Range Officer. The Writ petitioner had given various items of trees annexed to the application, which were permitted by the second respondent, running Serial Nos.1 to 990 as non- schedule trees.
4.In the meanwhile, one Sarasammal has filed a suit in O.S.No.12 of 1998, claiming title over the property in Survey No.753/1B, and also sought for injunction against the Writ petitioner. It is the statement of the Writ petitioner that in view of the civil suit, the respondents were not permitted to remove the trees, which were already cut. Therefore, he had filed an injunction petition, as directed by the High Court and obtained an order of injunction restraining the respondents from removing the trees. Armed with the interim order, the writ petitioner removed several trees, which were already cut and stored in his lands. Thereafter, the second respondent in his proceedings in Se.Mu.Order.No.7292/2006/D, dated 26.10.2009, had cancelled the cutting order issued, vide, letter in Na.Ka.No.7292/2006, dated 04.01.2007 and the order issued by the third respondent/Forest Range Officer, Sirumalai on 06.01.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the Writ petitioner is before us.
5.The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit reiterating the factual aspects and would submit that the writ petitioner had followed the cutting orders dated 04.01.2007 and 06.01.2007 that the trees shall be cut in the presence of the Forest Ranger. Therefore, the order passed after hearing the writ petitioner, was sustainable. The writ petitioner in his explanation had stated that no opportunity was given to him. But, he had not specifically replied whether he cut the trees in the presence of the third respondent/Forest Range Officer or not. Therefore, the cancellation order is legal.
6.Heard both sides.
7.According to the Writ petitioner, the land was a Ryotwari land. From the order passed in W.P.No.3000 of 1977, dated 22.02.1980, it could be seen that the land in Survey No.753/1B, at Sirumalai Puthur Village, was under challenge. It was categorically held that the land in Survey No.753/1B was a Ryoti land and Ryotwari Patta had been issued. The action of the District Collector declaring as a Forest land was set aside and it is also held that the Government orders were not applicable to the said Survey Number alone. Thereafter, when there was a proposal to initiate criminal prosecution against the writ petitioner, the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, had issued clarification to the District Collector, Dindigul, that the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.258, Forests and Fisheries, dated 20.03.1986, relate only to constitution of District Committee for each of the hill area/village in Anna District and that the validity of the said Government Order is no longer applicable, as the High Court had quashed the order in G.O.Ms.No.1172, Forests and Fisheries, dated 25.10.1979 in so far as it relates to the lands of the petitioner in Sirumalai Village. Therefore, it was held that the land belonging to the petitioner in Survey No.753/1B, could not be treated as a Forest land and it could not be declared as a ?Hill area? under Tamil Nadu Hill Area (Preservation of trees Act, 1955). Therefore, the permission from the Committee constituted under 2A of Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955, will not be applicable to the petitioner. Therefore, it was clarified by the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government that not to initiate the criminal prosecution against the petitioner.
8.In the meanwhile, there were lot of litigations with regard to cutting and removing of the trees and ultimately this Court is concerned only with the impugned order dated 26.10.2009. From the perusal of the orders, it is noted that by virtue of the Interim Injunction granted by the learned II Additional District Munsif, Dindigul in I.A.No.187 of 2008 in O.S.No.183 of 2007, the petitioner had removed several non-schedule trees, which were already cut in his land. Now, it is the contention of the petitioner that the remaining trees which were lying in his land, without getting any permission, he shall remove it. According to him, Form-II permit contemplated under Rule 4 of Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Act, 1968 in conjunction with Rule 2, has to be issued by the second respondent. The second respondent in view of the filing of the suits, inimically disposed of with the Writ petitioner, has refused to grant permission. The various trees, which were already cut, were lying spoiled by white aunt. Therefore, in order to remove the trees, the order of the second respondent, cancelling the permission granted under Form-II, shall be set aside and the petitioner shall be permitted to remove the trees.
9.From the perusal of the orders, it is clearly seen that the writ petitioner is entitled to cut the trees from his land, which is a Ryotwari land and is not covered under Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of trees) Act, 1955 and only in so far as the removal of trees is concerned, the permission is needed. It is not clear as to whether any permission is required to cut the trees from the Ryotwari land. The respondents also had not mentioned any provision of law with regard to cutting of the trees in the said cutting order issued by them. Therefore, what is required under Law is for transit of any tree or moving of timber by land, water or air by permitting any Form-II permit, shall be obtained as per Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968. Instead of going into the factual matter in dispute, it would suffice to issue a direction, directing the second respondent to consider the representation of the writ petitioner, seeking Form-II permit.
10.Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.10.2009 passed by the second respondent is set aside and the writ petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the second respondent enclosing all the orders of the High Court in W.P.No.3000 of 1977, dated 22.02.1980 and W.P.No.4139 of 1980 dated 09.09.1986, and other relevant orders and other exemptions granted by the Government as on today and to seek permission to remove the trees for issuance of Form-II permit under Rule 4 of Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968, and on receipt of the same, the second respondent is directed to consider it on merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the representation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of representation from the writ petitioner.
11.The Writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No order as to costs.
To
1. The Conservator of Forest, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2. The District Forest Officer, Velunachiar Compound, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
3. The Forest Range Officer, Sirumalai Pudur, Dindigul, Dindigul District. .