C.Ramachandra Durai (Died) vs The Regional Manager on 4 April, 2017

[Cites 3, Cited by 9]

Madras High Court

C.Ramachandra Durai (Died) vs The Regional Manager on 4 April, 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.04.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE S.A(MD).No.765 of 2001 and CMP No.7892 of 2001 C.Ramachandra Durai (Died) ....Appellant/Respondent/Plaintiff

1.R.Selvarani

2.Porkovan

3.R.Sakkaravathy

4.R.Chitra

5.R.Mannavan

6.A.Kanimozhi

7.S.Duraipavalam

8.R.Karthika

9.R.Revathi : Appellants 1 to 9 (Appellants 1 to 9 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole appellant Vide order dated 25.10.2011 made in CMP.Nos.3561 to 3563 of 2016 in S.A.No.765 of 2001) Vs.

1.The Regional Manager, Forest Plantation Corporation, Pudukottai.

2.The Regional Manager, Forest Plantation Corporation, Aranthangi. : Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants Prayer: Second appeal filed under section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.150 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai on 9.07.2000, in reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.67 of 1992 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai on 24.10.1997.


!For Appellants           : Mr.K.Baalasundaram

^For Respondent        : Mr.S.Kumar
                                                 Additional Government
Pleader

:Judgment

This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff. The suit is for bare injunction seeking the relief against the defendants, who are officials of the Forest Plantation Corporation, from auctioning the yields of cashew-nut plants along with the other plants standing in the forest lands. The parties would be referred to by their rank in the suit.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the suit property originally fell under Ex.A1 under the Estate Abolition Act 1948; that the plaintiff's father was assigned some lands and granted patta; that subsequently in 1985, UDR Patta was issued in the name of the plaintiff. The property is a private estate, where different varieties of trees and other plants were there. While so, the respondents/defendants attempted to auction the properties. Hence, the suit.

3.The contentions of the defendants in essence are: The suit property in Survey No.139/6 of Senthangudi Village in Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District has been declared as a Reserved Forest and that due notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act, followed by proclamation under Section 6 of the Act, have been given.

4.The trial court has dismissed the suit, but granted the relief to approach the Forest Settlement Officer to agitate his right. This was challenged by the respondents herein in the first appeal in A.S.No.150 of 1999. The learned Additional District Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai has allowed the appeal and while disposing the appeal, has admitted that the suit per se is not maintainable and that the Government, who is a necessary party to decide the controversy raised, has not been made as a party to the suit.

5.The entire records of the case has since been called for and has been made available.

6.The records and the material papers in this case are perused and I do not find any infirmity in the approach of the courts below. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the plaintiff was not even put on notice under Section 4 of the Act and consequently, he was unable to participate in any of the enquiry, pursuant to the proclamation under Section 6 of the Act. While the said submission cannot improve his chances in the appeal, the appellants are free to pursue such remedies before the Settlement Officer, if that are still available to them under law.

7.With the above observation, this second appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 09.7.2000 in A.S.No.150 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.10.1997 made in O.S.No.67 of 1992 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai is hereby confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected connected CMP is closed.

To:

1.The Additional District Judge/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai.,

2.The Additional District Munsif, Pudukkottai.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court