Madras High Court
Sirumalai Pazhathotta Vivasyigal ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 July, 2011
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.07.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NOs.731, 2440 and 3259 of 2007, 8103, 10563 and 15149 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2007, 1 to 3,3,4, 2 and 3 of 2010 W.P.No.731 of 2007 : Sirumalai Pazhathotta Vivasyigal Sangam, Velanpannai, Thalakadai Post, Sirumalai, Dindigul District rep by its President Duraisamy Boopathy .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary Department of Forest and Environment, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. 4.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul 5.The Forest Settlement Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District. 6.The Central Empowerment Committee, New Delhi. .. Respondents W.P.No.2440 of 2007 : 1.L.Muruganandam 2.S.Manikandan 3.K.Janarthanam 4.C.Naachan 5.K.Dharmar 6.C.Palaniammal 7.P.Azhagu 8.A.Lakshmi 9.A.Lingammal 10.M.Perumal 11.R.Vellimalai 12.R.Baskar 13.R.Rathinam 14.A.Dhanraj 15.A.Ranjitham 16.T.Dinesh 17.P.T.Arumugam 18.M.Rajagopal 19.N.Paramasivam 20.V.Subramani 21.M.Ramamoorthy 22.P.Naachan 23.A.Potti 24.K.Suruli 25.S.Lourduraj 26.M.Velusamy 27.A.Palanisamy 28.P.Vellaichamy 29.P.Chinnathurai 30.T.Paulraj 31.J.Emalda Angel Mary 32.P.Lessy Antonyraj 33.R.Jaya 34.Mariya Savior Rani 35.T.Rajendiran 36.T.Rajathiammal 37.R.M.Chandrasekar 38.D.Karuppiah 39.R.Ganesan 40.S.Ramasamy 41.J.Kannan 42.R.Jayaraman 43.M.Vajravel 44.V.Prabakaran 45.R.Sethuraman 46.N.Muthu 47.M.Dharmar 48.K.Sandanam 49.N.Rengaraj 50.S.Muthuveeran 51.D.Iyappan 52.Chellamuthu 53.S.Chinnaraj 54.S.Murugan 55.P.Jesuraj 56.V.RAj 57.S.Thasthagir 58.S.Kasim 59.N.Azhagar 60.K.Nallathambi 61.P.Palanivelrajan 62.R.RAvichandran 63.P.S.Nagarajan 64.P.S.Palanisamy 65.A.Rajkumar 66.P.S.Azhagarsamy 67.P.S.Deepalakshmi 68.S.V.Vellimalai 69.P.Madhukkan Perumal 70.G.Uthiriyaraj 71.K.Arumugam 72.S.Palanisamy 73.P.Ravi 74.S.Azhagan 75.Azhagumalai 76.S.Arulgnanaprakasam 77.Veerappa Naicker 78.V.Muniyandi 79.Saraswathi 80.K.Nagu Maniam 81.A.Naatchimuthu 82.M.Govindaraj 83.V.Chinnakannan 84.M.Sebastian 85.M.Azagarsamy 86.N.Muthu 87.A.Karuthukannan 88.M.Marikannan 89.P.Paulraj 90.R.Balu 91.A.Sesuraj 92.S.Pappathi 93.S.Azhagan 94.M.Sandhiyagu 95.S.V.Marimuthu 96.C.Nallakannu 97.R.Krishnammal 98.C.Saravanakumar 99.D.Manjula 100.K.Amsamani 101.K.Karuthapandian 102.C.Jeevanandam 103.S.Muthu 104.T.Gopal 105.V.Kannan 106.R.Mudiyarasu 107.Rajasannasi 108.M.Selvam 109.E.Ayyavu 110.K.S.Lakshmanan 111.Velammal 112.V.N.V.Boopathi 113.S.Lakshmi 114.C.Nalliyappa Gounder 115.A.Santhanam 116.R.Nalliyappan 117.P.Kalyani 118.N.S.P.Maduraipandian 119.M.Vetrivel 120.V.Muniyandi 121.M.Arumugam 122.R.Krishnan 123.K.Vellimalai 124.A.Murugan 125.S.Velu 126.N.Jenoba 127.P.Kadhiravan 128.M.Krishnamoorthy 129.M.Vellumalai .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. .. Respondents W.P.No.3259 of 2007 : 1.M.Thangavel 2.K.Munusamy 3.M.Panjavarnam 4.A.Ponnar 5.Amirtham 6.P.Sankar 7.Malammal 8.A.Chinniah 9.V.Vanaraj 10.M.Muthammal 11.P.Mangayammal 12.S.Arunachalam 13.N.Samiraj 14.S.Chinammal 15.Subbammal 16.Kamatchi 17.Thimmichettiar 18.S.Govindumaniam 19.C.Chandrasekar 20.S.Johnpeter 21.S.Anthonyraj 22.Chellaiah 23.M.Saravanavalli 24.T.Jayaramu 25.S.Arokiyasamy 26.C.Muthu 27.S.Muthu 28.Semban Ambalam 29.P.Rajaramu Gounder 30.T.Mallaya Gounder 31.V.Vellimalai 32.S.Perumal 33.A.Motchamery 34.P.Azhagu 35.P.Chinnaveeri 36.P.Vellivel 37.Magudeeswari 38.V.Raja 39.A.Palanisamy Gounder 40.R.Ramar 41.M.Jarnan 42.M.Vellimalai 43.A.Selvi 44.M.Ramasamy 45.R.Nagaraj 46.T.Veerappan 47.Subbammal 48.M.Dhanalakshmi 49.J.Janarthanan 50.K.Rajramu 51.V.Murugan 52.Vellaiammal 53.S.Govindan 54.T.Palanisamy 55.T.Ramasamy 56.Muthukalai 57.Pichaiammal 58.A.Subburayan 59.P.Nagappan 60.V.Vellimalai 61.S.Subramani 62.P.Vellaisamy 63.P.Parvathiyam 64.P.Rajkumar 65.K.Sindhammal 66.A.Kanchivanam 67.P.S.Pappathi 68.S.Karnan 69.V.Munusamy 70.T.Subramani 71.V.Vallimalai 72.M.Sakthivel 73.S.Gandhimadhi 74.G.Murugan 75.P.Karuppusamy 76.T.Palanisamy 77.P.Selvakumar 78.S.Jayalakshmi 79.P.Manimaran 80.D.Dhandapani 81.Veerammal 82.C.Palanisamy 83.S.Kuppusamy 84.A.Perumal 85.S.Azhagammal 86.S.Saraswathi 87.P.Palanisamy 88.C.Sovadammal 89.P.Azhagar 90.A.P.Palanisamy 91.P.S.Nagarajan 92.S.Kannan .. Petitioners Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3.The District Colletor, Dindigul District, Dindigul. .. Respondents W.P.No.8103 of 2010 : Sirumalai Pazhathotta Vivasyigal Sangam, Velanpannai, Thalakadai Post, Sirumalai, Dindigul District rep by M.Thangavel, Secretary. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. .. Respondents W.P.No.10563 of 2010 : 1.Renganayaki 2.Thangapandiyan 3.Parthasarathy 4.Ganasekar 5.Janaki 6.Rukumani 7.Balamani 8.Muthulakshmi 9.Ramalakshmi 10.Palanisamy 11.Kannan 12.Adilakshmi 13.Sivakumar 14.Perumal 15.Gopinathan 16.Ellappan 17.Perumal 18.Vijayaragavan 19.Palraj 20.Rajendran 21.Kanagaraj 22.Nachammal 23.Illakia 24.Hema 25.Palanisamy 26.Perumal 27.Suresh 28.Nandagopal .. Petitioners Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 4.The Sirumalai first grade Panchayat rep by its President, Sirumalai Pazayanur Post, Sirumalai, Dindigul District. .. Respondents W.P.No.15149 of 2010 : 1.M.Thangavel 2.K.Munusamy 3.M.Panjavarnan 4.Ponnar 5.Amirtham 6.P.Sankar 7.Malammal 8.Chinniah 9.V.Vanaraj 10.M.Muthammal 11.P.Mangayammal 12.S.Arunachalam 13.N.Samiraj 14.S.Chinammal 15.Mohanraj 16.Kamatchi 17.Thinnichettiar 18.S.Govindumaniam 19.C.Chandrasekar 20.S.Johnpeter 21.S.Anthonyraj 22.Chelliah 23.M.Saravanavalli 24.T.Jayaramu 25.S.Arockiyasamy 26.C.Muthu 27.S.Muthu 28.Semban Ambalam 29.P.Rajaramu Gounder 30.T.Mallaya Gounder 31.V.Vellimalai 32.S.Perumal 33.Motchamery 34.P.Azhagu 35.P.Chinnaveeri 36.P.Vetrivel 37.Magudeeswari 38.V.Raja 39.A.Palanisamy Gounder 40.A.Ramar 41.M.Karan 42.M.Vellimalai 43.Selvi 44.M.Ramasamy 45.R.Nagaraj 46.T.Veerappan 47.Subbammal 48.M.Dhanalakshmi 49.J.Janarthanan 50.K.Rajaramu 51.V.Murugan 52.Vellaiammal 53.S.Govindan 54.T.Palanisamy 55.T.Ramasamy 56.Muthukalai 57.Pichaiammal 58.Suburayal 59.P.Nagappan 60.V.Vellimalai 61.S.Subramani 62.P.Vellaisamy 63.P.Parvathiyammal 64.P.Rajkumar 65.K.Sindhammal 66.Kanchivanam 67.P.S.Pappathi 68.S.Kannan 69.V.Munusamy 70.T.Subramani 71.V.Vellimalai 72.M.Sakthivel 73.S.Gandhimadhi 74.G.Murugan 75.P.Karuppusamy 76.T.Palanisamy 77.P.Selvakumar 78.S.Jayalakshmi 79.P.Manimaran 80.D.Dhandapani 81.Veerammal 82.C.Palanisamy 83.S.Kuppusamy 84.Perumal 85.S.Azhagammal 86.S.Saraswathi 87.P.Palanisamy 88.C.Savadammal 89.P.Azhagar 90.A.P.Palanisamy 91.Sanmugavel 92.S.Kannan 93.S.Rathinam 94.S.Thomas Anthony 95.Savariyar 96.Veerasamy 97.S.Velusamy 98.Dhanalakshmi 99.Duraipandi 100.S.Katturaj 101.Soundarajan 102.Thangaraj 103.Ponnukalai 104.Pitchaimani 105.N.Raman 106.K.Rasumaniam 107.Gurusamy 108.Surendaran 109.Selvakumar 110.P.Kulandaivel 110.Pandiyammal 112.S.Manikandan 113.K.Janarthanam 114.C.Naachan 115.K.Dharmar 116.C.Palaniammal 117.P.Azhagu 118.Lakshmi 119.Lingammal 120.M.Perumal 121.R.Vellimalai 122.R.Baskar 123.R.Rathinam 124.Dhanraj 125.Ranjitham 126.D.Dinesh 127.P.T.Arumugam 128.M.Rajagopal 129.V.Subramani 130.M.Ramamoorthy 131.N.Paramasivam 132.P.Naachan 133.Potti 134.K.Suruli 135.S.Lourduraj 136.N.Velusamy 137.Palanisamy 138.P.Vellaichamy 139.P.Chinnathurai 140.T.Paulraj 141.J.Emalda Angel Mary 142.P.Lessy Anthonyraj 143.R.Jaya 144.Mariya Savior Rani 145.T.Rajendran 146.T.Rajathammal 147.M.Chandrasekar 148.D.Karuppiah 149.R.Ganesan 150.S.Ramasamy 151.J.Kannan 152.R.Jayaraman 153.M.Vajravel 154.V.Prabaharan 155.R.Sethuraman 156.N.Muthu 157.M.Dharmar 158.K.Sandhanam 159.N.Rengaraj 160.S.Muthuveeran 161.D.Iyappan 162.Chellamuthu 163.S.Chinnaraj 164.S.Murugan 165.P.Jesuraj 166.V.Raj 167.S.Thasthagir 168.S.Kasim 169.N.Azhagar 170.K.Nallathambi 171.P.Palanivelrajan 172.R.Ravichandran 173.P.S.Nagarajan 174.P.S.Palanisamy 175.Rajkumar 176.P.S.Azhagarsamy 177.P.S.Deepalakshmi 178.S.V.Vellimalai 179.P.Madhukkan Perumal 180.G.Uthiriyaraj 181.K.Arumugam 182.S.Palanisamy 183.P.Ravi 184.S.Azhagan 185.Azhagumalai 186.S.Arulgananaprakasam 187.Veerappa Naicker 188.V.Muniyandi 189.Saraswathi 190.K.Nagumaniam 191.Naatchimuthu 192.M.Govindaraj 193.V.Chinnakkannan 194.M.Sebastian 195.M.Azhagarsamh 196.N.Muthu 197.K.Karuthukannan 198.M.Marikannan 199.P.Paulraj 200.R.Balu 201.Sesuraj 202.S.Papatthi 203.M.Sandhiyagu 204.S.V.Marimuthu 205.C.Nallakannu 206.R.Krishnammal 207.C.Saravanakumar 208.D.Manjula 209.K.Amsamani 210.K.Karuthapandian 211.C.Jeevanandam 212.S.Muthu 213.T.Gopal 214.V.Kannan 215.R.Mudiyarasu 216.Rajasannasi 217.M.Selvam 218.E.Ayyavu 219.K.S.Lakshmanan 220.Vellammal 221.V.N.V.Boopathi 222.S.Lakshmi 223.C.Nalliyappa Gounder 224.Santhanam 225.R.Nalliayappan 226.P.kalyani 227.N.S.P.Maduraiapandian 228.M.Vetrivel 229.V.Muniyandi 230.Regupathi 231.M.Arumugam 232.R.Krishnan 233.K.Vellimalai 234.Murugan 235.S.Velu 236.P.Azhagumalai 237.N.Jenoba 238.P.Kadhiravan 239.M.krishnamoorthy 240.M.Vellimalai 241.M.kaliappan 242.M.Palanisamy 243.V.Nataraj 244.V.Ramasamy .. Petitioners Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 4.The Sirumalai first grade Panchayat rep by its President, Sirumalai Pazayanur Post, Sirumalai, Dindigul District. .. Respondents W.P.No.731 of 2007 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in and by his proceedings in letter (D) No.313/FR14/2006 dt 2.11.2006 and quash the same and consequently forbear the 1st respondent from notifying the petitioner land in respect of Survey Numbers contained in the 5th respondent proceedings in Na.Ka.No.19/76/A dt 24.3.2006 as reserve forest till the resettlement proceeding are conducted by 2nd respondent or rehabilitation scheme framed by the Central empowerment committee constituted by Honourable Supreme Court of India. W.P.Nos.2440 and 3259 of 2007 are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to issue patta for the petitioners in respect of their holdings (the extent which is mentioned in the Annexure) and consequently to forbear the respondents from including their lands in the proposed notification for reserve forest. W.P.Nos.8103,10563 and 15149 of 2010 are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent made in G.O.(D) No.15 Environment and Forest (FR 14) Department, dated 4.2.2010 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to issue patta in respect of the holdings of the lands by the members of the petitioner association. For Petitioners : M/s.Selvi George in W.P.NOs.731, 2440 and 3259 of 2007, 8103 and 15149 of 2010 and also for Mr.Christopher Vijay in W.P.No.10563 of 2010 For Respondents : Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, Advocate General assisted by Mr.M.K.Subramanian, Spl.G.P(Forest) - - - - COMMON ORDER
In this batch of writ petitions, the first three writ petitions were filed in the year 2007 and the last three writ petitions were filed in the year 2010. The petitioner in W.P.No.731 of 2007 is an Association of Sirumalai Pazhathotta Vivasayigal Sangam, Velanpannai. It is claimed that the said association is a registered association with registration No.45/2004 and that it has a total membership of 635 persons. The members are the residents of Thenmalai, Thalai Kadai, Chinna Kadai, Rotti Kadu, Thavadukku Kadai and other small hamlets under the foothill of Sirumalai coming under the Dindigul Taluk.
2.In that writ petition, the petitioner association seeks to challenge an order of the first respondent State dated 02.11.2006 and seeks to set aside the same and also to further forbear the respondents from notifying the lands in survey numbers contained in the proceedings of the Forest Settlement Officer, Dindigul, dated 24.3.2006 as reserve forest till resettlement proceedings were completed by the second respondent, i.e., Revenue Department or a rehabilitation scheme framed by the Central Empowerment Committee constituted by the Supreme Court.
3.The impugned proceedings, dated 2.11.2006 is a letter addressed to the petitioner association by the State Government wherein they had referred to an order passed by the Madurai Bench of this High Court in W.P.(MD)No.5506 of 2006, dated 13.9.2006. In that order, this court had directed the State Government to consider the request of the petitioner association for the grant of patta based on the report filed by the District Forest Officer, Dindigul, dated 1.9.2006 within a time frame. In the impugned order in paragraphs 3 to 6, it was stated as follows:
"3.Your sangam has sent representation dated 24.08.2006 addressed to the District Forest Officer, Dindigul requesting for exclusion of the lands they have encroached upon from the proposed notification as Reserve Forest under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act.
4.The Report of the District Forest Officer, Dindigul vide Rec.No.6650/2006, dt. 1.9.2006 and the report sent by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest vide Ref.No.WR3/42046/2006, dated 25.10.2006 were considered by the Government. 149 petitions from the encroachers of Sirumalai West Block Reserve Land areas have been received by the District Forest Officer requesting for exclusion of their lands from the proposed notification under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act.
5.The District Forest Officer has stated that he has carefully considered the claims of the petitioners and stated that as per the existing Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.No.202/95 in I.A.No.418 no patta should be granted in any forest lands and encroachment in forest land should not be regularized. These are the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the Government of Tamil Nadu.
6.Keeping all these things in mind, the Government have examined carefully the request of the said Sangam dt.24.08.2006 and the report of the District Forest Officer, Dindigul Division dated 1.9.2006 and reject the request of the petitioners of the Sirumalai Vivasayigal Sangam."
4.Even though the said order came to be passed pursuant to the directions issued by the Madurai Bench of this court, the petitioner association deliberately filed the writ petition before the Principal Bench for reasons best known to them. It has been done despite statutory requirements that such writ petition arising out of 13 revenue district coming under the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench has to be heard only by the Madurai Bench. Further the entire cause of action arose within the districts coming under the jurisdiction of Madurai Bench. However, the said writ petition was admitted on 26.4.2007. Pending the writ petition, this court had granted a status quo order to be maintained as on 26.4.2007. Subsequently, the very same petitioner association filed M.P.No.1 of 2008 seeking for the grant of an interim injunction restraining the respondents from any way surveying the land in Sirumalai village, Dindigul taluk which is in possession of the members of the petitioner association. The learned Judge of this court by an order dated 19.8.2008 in paragraph 4 of the order had directed as follows:
"4.The petitioner Association has now filed M.P.No.1 of 2008 for injunction restraining the respondents from surveying the land in Sirumalai Village, Dindigul Taluk which is in possession of the members of the petitioner's association. The said prayer cannot be granted at this stage. It is open to the Government to make a survey to find out the nature of the lands so as to decide whether encroachment is there or not for enabling the Government to pass appropriate orders. In view of the same, this Court directs the Government to effect survey as per law. However till the disposal of the writ petition, the District Collector is permitted to continue the survey and if the members of the petitioner's Association are in possession, they should not be disturbed."
5.Subsequently, the respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit, dated 9.4.2009. Subsequent to the said writ petition, one L.Muruganandam, S/o.K.S.Lakshmanan, Ponnurukki village, Sirumalai along with 128 persons filed W.P.No.2440 of 2007 seeking for a direction to the respondents to issue pattas in respect of their holdins of the lands set out in the annexure to the writ petition and to forbear the respondents from including those lands in the proposed notification by the State Government to declare the areas as reserve forest. In the typed set filed in that writ petition, they have also enclosed a draft revised notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act in respect of Sirumalai West Block. The said notification reads as follows:
"In exercise of the powers conferred by Section I of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act 1882, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby cancel all the previous notification in so far as they relate to Sirumalai West Block.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1882) the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby declares that it is proposed to constitute as "Reserve Forest" the land within the boundaries specified in the Schedule below subject to exception noted therein and appoints the special Deputy Collector (Forest Settlement in Ex-Zamin Forests) Madurai to be the Forest Settlement Officer Ex-officio to exercise the powers under clause (c) of the said section in respect of the lands specified in the schedule.
Schedule Madurai District Dindigul and Nilakottai Taluk Name of the Block Sirumalai West Area 22,204-49 acres Village No.95 Sirumalai - 18,603-59 " No.103 Kulasekaran Kottai - 204-06 " No.103 -do- S.No.46 - 387-00 " No.104 Viralipatti S.No.1/1 - 3,009-84
---------------
22,204-49
---------------
6.The said writ petition was admitted on 22.1.2007. Pending the writ petition, this court had ordered notice in the application for injunction. On receiving the notice from this court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, dated 10.2.2011.
7.In W.P.No.3259 of 2007, the petitioners are one M.Thangavel and 91 others belonging to the same place and the relief claimed in that writ petition was similar to the one in W.P.No.2440 of 2007. That writ petition was admitted on 31.1.2007. Pending the writ petition, notice was ordered in the injunction application. On notice, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, dated 30.4.2010.
8.Even while those three writ petitions are pending, the respondent State had issued G.O.(D).No.15, Environment and Forest Department dated 4.2.2010 passing final orders in terms of Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest act, 1882 declaring the lands as reserve forest. It was argued that the said notification was published in the Government gazette. In the notification, it was announced that in respect of Sirumalai village, an extent of 3881.16.5 hectares were notified as reserve forest with effect from 13.9.2010. The survey numbers as well as extent of lands as per the notification declared as reserve forest in Sirumalai Village are as follows:
Land Survey No. Extent (in Hectares) 695 Part 3710.88.5 701 48.00.5 760/1 90.23.0 760/3 29.00.0 760/2 0.79.5 785/2 0.87.0 825/2 1.38.0
9.The boundaries of the reserve forest were also indicated elaborately in the said notification. It was also stated in the notification that pathways which were found even before the draft notification issued under Section 4 referred to earlier will be continued to be permitted to be used by public of the said road. It is the statutory notification dated 4.2.2010 was challenged by the same association (petitioner in W.P.No.731 of 2007). That writ petition when it came up on 21.4.2010, the learned Judge incharge of admission posed the following questions before the counsel appearing for the petitioner, which reads as follows:
"2.Writ petition has been filed by M/s.Sirumalai Pazhathotta Vivasayigal Sangam. Petitioner is called upon to submit the following:-
(i)Petitioner has to explain as to how the writ petition is maintainable by Sangam when individuals claim rights.
(ii)Petitioner has to explain their pre-existing right in the property so as to challenge the Notification.
(iii)The claim is based on the proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 2.4.1968 and that is with regard to Survey No.879. The Notification which is under challenge does not include Survey No.879.
(iv)Along with the injunction petition (i.e.) M.P.No.2 of 2010 an Annexure giving details of the individuals has been filed. In that Annexure, the common Survey Number is shown as 879, whereas the allotted survey Numbers to each of the individuals is totallly different. The petitioner has to explain the inconsistency."
The respondents were also directed to file a counter affidavit. Subsequently it was directed to be posted along with other writ petitions.
10.The very same notification came to be challenged by one Renganayaki and 27 others in W.P.No.10563 of 2010. That writ petition was admitted on 12.5.2010. Pending the writ petition, the same counsel who had appeared in the Association case pleaded before the learned judge that though the petitioners were members of the said association, their names were not included in the annexure filed in W.P.No.731 of 2007 and she sought for an interim order as was granted in W.P.No.731 of 2007. This conduct of the counsel is highly objectionable. In W.P.No.731 of 2007 the association was aggrieved by the draft notification and subsequently when the very same association filed W.P.No.8103 of 2010 it was not even admitted by this court. This court had posed the questions to the counsel which was set out above. In that writ petition, the challenge was to the final notification, dated 4.2.2010. Therefore, in this Writ Petition when the challenge was to the final notification, it was improper for the counsel referring to the previous order for obtaining the order of status quo. It must also be noted that though the said writ petition was filed in the name of another counsel (Mr.Christoper Vijay), it was argued by M/s.Selvi George, who is the counsel for the association in the other two writ petitions. Further the matter was also moved during the summer vacation. This conduct of the counsel in filing writ petition in the name of the another counsel and seeking for an interim order, which was not given in favour of the association and also not bringing to the notice of this court about the court not granting of any interim order in W.P.No.8103 of 2010 was highly improper.
11.It must be stated that no counsel can mislead the court only for the purpose of getting an interim order. The circumstances pleaded by the counsel for getting the interim order and making reference to the earliest W.P.No.731 of 2007 was totally irrelevant since in the last three years there were change of circumstances and a final notification was also issued by the State Government declaring the lands as reserve forest which became the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition.
12.Subsequently, the last writ petition in W.P.No.15149 of 2010 was filed by M.Thangavel and 243 persons challenging the very same final notification. In the affidavit in paragraph 1, those persons have stated that they are also members of the petitioner association in W.P.Nos.731 of 2007 and 8103 of 2010. Since they were of the view that the association cannot maintain the writ petition, they have filed the writ petition with individual names. When that writ petition came up on 20.7.2010, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) gave an undertaking that the petitioners' possession will not be disturbed. Subsequently, the matter was directed to be posted along with the other writ petitions.
13.In view of the interconnectivity among the six writ petitions, they were heard together. While the first three writ petitions challenges the draft notification, the last three writ petitions challenges the final notification. When the matter came up for final disposal on 1.4.2011, the respondents were directed to file counter on 6.4.2011. Subsequently, on 12.4.2011, counter affidavit was filed. M/s.Selvi George, learned counsel sought for time to file a reply. Hence it was adjourned to 25.4.2011. In view of the intervening holidays, the matter was called after reopening of the court on 16.6.2011. When it came up on 16.6.2011, Mr.V.S.Sethuraman, learned counsel for the petitioners (who by then had become the Additional Advocate General-I) informed that he was no longer appearing for the petitioners. Thereafter, it was adjourned for more than two occasions. On 30.6.2011, the matter was argued on behalf of the department by Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, learned Advocate General leading Mr.K.M.Subramanian, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest). Though an attempt was made to seek further time, this court refused to grant the same. Thereafter, M/s.Selvi George filed written submissions in respect of all the six writ petitions.
14.The contentions raised by the petitioners were that they were the residents of Thenmalai, Thalakadai, Chinnakadai, Rottikadu and other small hamlets under the foothill of Sirumalai of Dindigul taluk. Their main avocation was agricultural. They are in possession and enjoyment of lands. The lands were originally barren lands without any use. The forefathers of the petitioners had reclaimed the lands by using physical labour. They have been cultivating the lands ever since the year 1958. They are cultivating banana, jack fruit, lemon, cashew nut and silk cotton, etc., They had allotted themselves different parcels of lands for personal cultivation. Their possession of lands was recognised by the revenue department by issuing B-memos. It was also entered into the village adangal of Sirumalai Village. Their possession were also recognised by the proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, dated 2.4.1968. The State Government had also sanctioned loan under the prevention of Soil Erosion scheme. The entire Sirumalai area originally belonged to Ammayanaicknoor Zamin. The Zamin was taken over under the Tamil Nadu Estate Abolition Act and that it should be correctly called as Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. It was also stated that the Assistant Settlement Officer has held that entire extent of R.S.No.879 should be registered as Suburbs Waste dry land and that the proceedings have reached finality.
15.It was also stated that each of the petitioners was in occupation of 5 to 6 acres of land. They are not growing any valuable timbers or forest products. The reserve forest is lying on the higher slopes and they are well demarcated and also is in control of the forest department. The provisions of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act are not applicable to the lands in question. It cannot be declared as reserve forest under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. The petitioners came to know that the Forest Tahsildar, Dindigul sent a proposal dated 24.3.2006 for inclusion of several lands under Section 16 of the Forest Act. The said recommendation included the lands held by the petitioners which are patta lands and classified in the revenue records a assessed waste as per the findings of the Assistant Settlement Officer. Originally the Tahsildar had recommended to include the survey No.879 to an extent of 1044.59 acres for proposed notification. At that stage, the association, i.e., the petitioner in W.P.Nos.731 of 2007 and 8103 of 2010 filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5506 of 2006 and seeks to forbear the respondents from notifying the lands situated in Sirumalai village under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. That writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State Government to consider the report sent by the District Forest Officer on 1.9.2006 and to pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the directions, an order dated 2.11.2006 came to be passed which is set out above and that became the subject matter of W.P.No.731 of 2007 filed by the association and W.P.Nos.2440 of 2007 and 3259 of 2007 filed by individuals.
16.It was further stated that even before the disposal of these three writ petitions, the State Government had passed the impugned order finally notifying the area as forest area under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act by issuance of G.O.(D)No.15, Environment and Forest Department dated 4.2.2010, which became the subject matter of the other three writ petitions. It was stated by the petitioners that the order of the Supreme Court referred to in I.A.No.418 in W.P.(C)No.202 of 1995 (T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India), dated 7.5.1999 has no relevance to the case on hand. Though the Supreme Court directed not to issue pattas in respect of forest lands, but the present lands are not forest lands, but merely assessed dry waste lands. When the Madurai Bench of this Court had directed the State Government to consider and pass orders for assigning patta, the said request has been rejected without due consideration of the representation. When the earlier writ petitions were pending before this court, without the leave of the court, the Government had issued final notification under Section 16. S.No.879 (R.S.No.695) in Sirumalai village cannot be forest land. Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act contemplates as to which lands can be notified as reserve forest. As per Section 3, only lands at the disposal of the Government can be considered as reserve forest.
17.It was further stated that the power under Section 16 can be exercised only when the period under Section 6 for preferring claims has lapsed and if any of the claims have been indisposed of by the Forest Settlement Officer and if claims are made under Sections 10 and 14 only after all the appeals have been disposed of by the appellate authority and only when all procedures under Section 10 have been taken. Thereafter, if any lands are remaining to be included as proposed forest, such notification can be issued. In order to issue such a notification, a Forest Settlement Officer under Section 4(c) will have to be appointed who will go into the claims of the interested persons. Thereafter, proclamation has to be made under Section 6. The Settlement Officer thereafter fix not less than three months time to prefer any objection. If any objections are received, the Settlement Officer will have to conduct an enquiry under Section 8 and if necessary, he has to record evidence. For all purposes, the Settlement Officer is a Court and his decree issued is appealable under Section 10 in respect of the admitted claims. If he rejects the claims, an appeal lies under Section 10(2) before the District Judge. A limitation has also been prescribed by the said Act. The Act also prescribed the types of notices to be issued. It requires notices not only to the land owners, but also to the persons who are in possession of the land. Though notice under Section 4 is published in the Government Gazette, the other notices under Section 6 or the subsequent notices have to be sent to individual land owners or occupiers. The individual petitioners are also seeking pattas in respect of lands which are in possession and enjoyment by them. Very recently the Parliament had enacted the Scheduled Tribe and Traditional Forest Dwellers Recognition of Forest Rights Act, 2006. The petitioners are entitled for protection under the said Act. There is no excuse for the respondents not following the appropriate procedures under the Act.
18.Countering the stand of the petitioners, the respondents have contended that the association of the residents cannot file writ petitions as they cannot be said to be the aggrieved party and that there was no proof that the association was representing 635 persons. Though the association had claimed 635 members, so far only 272 persons (244 + 28) have filed writ petitions. Therefore, it was claimed that encroachers of forest lands are attempting to legalise their activities by unlawfully making claims. It was stated that R.S.No.695 in Sirumalai village is coming under the jurisdiction of the Sirumalai West Block reserve land comprising of total area of 22204.49 acres. They were originally formed part of erstwhile Ammaiyanaickanur Zameen Estate. The State Government had abolished the estate by Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and had applied the provisions of the Act in respect of the said Zameen and other Zameens by issuing G.O.Ms.No.3157, Revenue Department, dated 09.12.1950. Subsequent to taking over of the Estate, a survey was directed to be conducted in respect of the zameen by the subsequent notification, dated 1.5.1951. The survey was directed to be conducted in terms of the power vested under Section 5 of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. The lands taken over from the estate were handed over to the Forest Department by G.O.ms.No.1416, Revenue Department, dated 15.10.1951 for their administration and control. The lands have spontaneous growth of trees and were also notified as forest under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 vide G.O.Ms.No.739, Forest and Fisheries Department, dated 28.7.1977 and was also notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 31.8.1977.
19.It was also stated that it was proposed to constitute these lands as reserve forest. In the very same notification, it was also stated that the lands which are not classified as forests and mountain and are lying within the boundaries mentioned in the notification were excluded. Thereafter, proclamation under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 was issued in the District Gazette on 8.4.1978 specifying the details of lands proposed to be included in the reserve forest and explained the consequences of reservation of such forests. The said notification required every person claiming over right to appear before the Forest Settlement Officer to submit the nature of their right and produce relevant documents. The total area notified under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 was 22204.49 acres. The proposed reserve forest comprised of three villages, i.e., Sirumalai, Kulasekarankottai and Viralipatti. In Sirumalai village coming under the Dindigul District, the extent of land notified was 18603.59 acres. The Forest Settlement Officer appointed by the Gazette notification on the basis of the records and evidence recorded in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 excluded 4879.12 acres. The said Forest Settlement Officer had received 366 applications and rejected the claims of more than 346 applicants. If no claim is made before the Settlement Officer, then no right accrues to any person. It is not the case of the petitioners that they ever made applications before the Forest Settlement Officer. If any of the petitioners or their forefathers have made any applications, then the authority who have considered the same in case negatived the claims, the Act provides for an appeal under Section 10 and a further appeal to the District Court.
20.It was further stated that subsequent to the proclamation under Section 6, only nine cases were identified by the Forest Settlement Officer and they were disposed of in terms of the provisions of the Act. The pattadars of Sirumalai hill village have encroached the nearby Government lands. The claims made by the encroachers under Section 6 were also disposed of in the manner prescribed. So far as 13 claims were admitted to an extent of 222.27 acres and an extent of 317.07 were excluded from the final notification due to pendency of court cases. The draft notification under Section 4 was published on 31.8.1977 and proclamation under Section 6 was issued on 8.4.1979 and 15.5.1978. Though the association of residents claimed to have formed in the year 2004, no one made any such claim earlier. The contention raised by the petitioners that the residents were in possession of lands for over 50 years was false. The proceedings alleged to have been conducted by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, dated 2.4.1968 had no relevant to the case of the petitioners. The petitioners themselves never made any claim under Section 6. The further claim that they were in receipt of subsidized loan for encroached land was also denied. The subsidized loan under Soil Conservation Scheme relates to patta lands. Though the petitioners claimed that they were in receipt of B-Memos with reference to forest lands, it is stated that the revenue authorities are not competent to issue B-Memos which are forest lands and that only the provision of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 be applicable. Further the B-Memos are only notices for payment of penalty for occupying the Government lands without authorization which enable the Government to evict the encroachers.
21.It was further stated that the lands are having forest cover with spontaneous growth of trees and that the encroachment in any form is not only against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, but also against the interim orders passed by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C)No.202/1995. The forest department had also issued eviction notices on 3.1.2007 in terms of Section 68A of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. The Forest Settlement Officer who had conducted enquiry, sent a final notification proposal during the year 2001 even before the association came into existence. In that proposal, no patta lands were included and necessary pathway right to patta lands situated within the proposed reserve forest were also admitted. The encroachments made in S.No.879 by the petitioners were only after proclamation under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act.
22.It was also brought to the notice of this court that a public interest litigation was filed before the Madurai Bench of the Madras high Court being W.P.(MD)No.9461 of 2005 praying for a direction to the forest department to enforce the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the other Acts. The Madurai Bench by judgment, dated 6.4.2006 gave a set of directions which are as follows:
"5.In view of the consensus reached by the counsel on either side, the suggestions made by the petitioner and accepted by the respondents, as submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General are extracted below:
a)In Sirumalai 7528.875 hectares of land is declared as Reserve land and proposals for declaration of this area as reserve forest under Section 16 of Tamil Nadu Forest act is under consideration of the Government and the said process may be completed within a period of one year.
b)Identification of Patta land and forest land should be expedited and demarcated with permanent non-removable markings after issue of the Sec.16 notification.
c)The encroachers within the forest area (3,187 hectares already declared) should be identified and they should be removed and prosecuted. The process of identification and removal of encroachment in Sirumalai Hills should be completed within one year.
d)Officers indicated by report of the Principal Conservator of Forest dated 28.02.2006 in para 5 should be sent out of the same circle in which they have committed the offences under the Forest Act and necessary departmental proceedings should be completed against them at the earliest.
e)an appointment of High Level Committee under the leadership of Dr.R.Annamalai, Chief Conservator of Forest (Vigilance) to supervise and monitor the departmental proceedings.
f)There should be a complete ban on felling up spontaneous trees in Sirumalai.
g)An exercise to identify and census of rosewood and Sandal trees in Sirumalai Hills within forest areas should be done and periodically review the same.
The respondents are directed to strictly follow the said suggestions in addition to the Statutory requirements under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act 1955, Tamil Nadu Rosewood Trees (Conservation) Act, 1994, and Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949. The written submissions submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner shall form part of the records in this petition. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed off. No costs. The connected WPMP Nos.10194 to 10196 are closed."
23.Subsequently, survey work was undertaken pursuant to the directions issued by this court. The petitioners being aware of the same did not refer to those subsequent developments when filing the second set of writ petitions. In fact in W.P.(MD)No.5506 of 2006, this court only by an order dated 13.09.2006 directed to pass an order within a time frame and that pursuant to the directions, 149 petitions were received from the encroachers of Sirumalai West Block reserve forest by the District Forest Officer requesting for exclusion from the proposed notification under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. The Government had rejected the request in terms of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and due obedience to the order passed by the Supreme Court in I.A.No.418 in W.P.(C)No.202 of 1995. It was also stated that the procedures under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act were scrupulously followed in dealing with the claims of the interested persons.
24.It was also brought to the notice of this court that the public interest litigant subsequent filed a contempt petition in Cont.P.(MD)No.103 of 2010 against the department and the State Government for not complying with the order of the court dated 6.4.2006. The Division Bench finally disposed of the contempt petition by an order dated 7.4.2010. The Division Bench held that while the department was implementing the order of status quo obtained by the petitioners, closing of illegally formed roads cannot be considered as a violation of status quo order. The Court also permitted the Forest Department to close the illegally formed roads by identifying such roads after getting necessary clearance from the Chief Judicial magistrate, Dindigul. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul was also directed to file a monthly report and upon receipt of the said report, the Registrar Judicial of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court was directed to go through the file and take necessary steps for posting the contempt petition for getting an appropriate order. In the operative portion of the order, in paragraph 8 it was observed as follows:
"8.That apart, since the second respondent stated before this Court that apart from the entire forest land of 3881.16.5 hectares, remaining forest land which is the subject matter of settlement proceedings which are being handled by the revenue authorities and which proceedings are kept pending by virtue of the status quo order in the pending writ petition Nos.731, 2440 & 3259 of 2007 and also C.M.A.No.729 of 2000 on the file of the District Court, Dindigul, we deem it appropriate to direct the Registry to post the above three writ petitions for hearing before the concerned Judge dealing with the final disposal of the writ petition on 14.06.2010. We also direct the learned District Judge, Dindigul to ensure that C.M.A.No.729 of 2000 is disposed of on or before 30.06.2010."
25.Therefore, the only question that arise for consideration is whether the petitioners have made out any case for countenancing the prayer made by them?. It must be noted that the association of the residents which original moved the Madurai Bench and got a direction to consider their representation and when it was refused, filing subsequent petitions before the Principal Bench for reasons best known to them is contrary to the jurisdiction vested on respective benches. In any event, their attempt to reopen the controversies which were already settled by virtue of final notification cannot be reopened at the instance of the third party like the petitioner association and individual petitioners. After proclamation under Section 6, none of the persons have filed any claim before the settlement officer. It would not be open to them to state that due procedure was not followed in issuing the final notification. The petitioners having B-memos in their possession has no relevance in deciding the issue raised in the present writ petitions. As rightly contended by the forest department, the revenue authorities have no holding in respect of the forest lands and even otherwise B-Memo does not confer any legal right.
26.The petitioners' other submission that they are entitled to have pattas for the said lands was also not proved before the authorities. In any event, if any patta was issued that will be directly in conflict with the order passed by the Supreme Court in I.A.No.418 in W.P.(C)No.202 of 1995, dated 7.5.1999. By the said order, the Supreme Court has held that no patta with reference to any forest land will be granted nor shall any encroachment be regularized. Therefore, the petitioners instead of moving the Supreme Court have come to this court for achieving some collateral benefits. In the present case, after abolition of the Inam under 1945 Act, the lands were taken over by the State and entrusted to the forest department to be kept as forest land. The State Government by virtue of the statutory power had issued a draft notification under Section 4 and thereafter published a final notification. While doing so, they had also exempted and recognized the public pathway which was in existence before the draft notification and no exception can be taken to the same.
27.In this context, it is necessary to refer to the attempt made by the Supreme Court to keep the forest free from encroachment and the necessity for keeping minimum forest cover so that environment degradation cannot take place. The Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India reported in (1997) 2 SCC 267 dealt with the need to keep the forest land as forest and in paragraphs 3 and 4 had observed as follows:
"3.It has emerged at the hearing, that there is a misconception in certain quarters about the true scope of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for short the Act) and the meaning of the word forest used therein. There is also a resulting misconception about the need of prior approval of the Central Government, as required by Section 2 of the Act, in respect of certain activities in the forest area which are more often of a commercial nature. It is necessary to clarify that position.
4.The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word forest must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term forest land, occurring in Section 2, will not only include forest as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of this Court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat1, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.2 and recently in the order dated 29-11-1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority3). The earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi4 has, therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequent decisions. We consider it necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government or authority. This has become necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this Court. It is reasonable to assume that any State Government which has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial measures without any further delay.
28.In respect of State of Tamil Nadu, the following specific directions were given by the Supreme Court, which reads as follows:
5.We further direct as under:
......
5. Each State Government should constitute within one month an Expert Committee to:
(i) Identify areas which are forests, irrespective of whether they are so notified, recognised or classified under any law, and irrespective of the ownership of the land of such forest;
(ii) identify areas which were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared; and
(iii) identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the Government and those belonging to private persons.
........
IV. FOR THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
1.There will be a complete ban on felling of trees in all forest areas. This will however not apply to:
(a) trees which have been planted and grown, and are not of spontaneous growth, and
(b) are in areas which were not forests earlier, but were cleared for any reason.
2.The State Government, within four weeks from today, is to constitute a committee for identifying all forests.
3.Those tribals who are part of the social forestry programme in respect of patta lands, other than forests, may continue to grow and cut according to the Government Scheme provided that they grow and cut trees in accordance with the law applicable.
4.Insofar as the plantations (tea, coffee, cardamom etc.) are concerned, it is directed as under:
(a) The felling of shade trees in these plantations will be
(i) limited to trees which have been planted, and not those which have grown spontaneously;
(ii) limited to the species identified in the TANTEA Report;
(iii) in accordance with the recommendations of (including to the extent recommended by) TANTEA; and
(iv) under the supervision of the statutory committee constituted by the State Government.
(b) Insofar as the fuel trees planted by the plantations for fuel wood outside the forest area are concerned, the State Government is directed to obtain within four weeks, a report from TANTEA as was done in the case of shade trees, and the further action for felling them will be as per that report. Meanwhile, Eucalyptus and Wattle trees in such area may be felled by them for their own use as permitted by the statutory committee.
(c) The State Government is directed to ascertain and identify those areas of the plantation which are a forest and are not in active use as a plantation. No felling of any trees is however to be permitted in these areas, and sub-paras (b) and (c) above will not apply to such areas.
(d) There will be no further expansion of the plantations in a manner so as to involve encroachment upon (by way of clearing or otherwise) of forests.
5.As far as the trees already cut, prior to the interim orders of this Court dated December 11, 1995 are concerned, the same may be permitted to be removed provided they were not so felled for Janmam land. The State Government would verify these trees and mark them suitably to ensure that this order is duly complied with. For the present, this is being permitted as a one-time measure.
6.Insofar as felling of any trees in Janmam lands is concerned (whether in plantations or otherwise), the ban on felling will operate subject to any order made in the Civil Appeals Nos. 367 to 375 of 1977 in CAs Nos. 1344-45 of 1976. After the order is made in those civil appeals on the IAs pending therein, if necessary, this aspect may be re-examined.
7.This order is to operate and to be implemented, notwithstanding any order at variance, made or which may be made by any Government or any authority, Tribunal or court, including the High Court.
The earlier orders made in these matters shall be read, modified wherever necessary to this extent. This order is to continue, until further orders. This order will operate and be complied with by all concerned, notwithstanding any order at variance, made or which may be made hereafter, by any authority, including the Central or any State Government or any court (including High Court) or Tribunal.
29.Further in I.A.No.418 in W.P.(C)No.202 of 1995, the Supreme Court had passed the following interim order :
"Notice to the State of Tamil Nadu returnable in the first week of August 1999.
In the meantime, no pattas with regard to any forest land shall be granted nor shall any encroachment be regularised."
30.When the attempt by the Supreme Court is to monitor the maintenance of forest and to avoid environment degradation to forest, the petitioners cannot by filing successive writ petitions get an order which will diametrically opposite to the efforts taken by the Supreme Court. The petitioners have failed to prove any violation of procedure by the department in issuing the impugned notification challenging in the two sets of writ petitions. They have also failed to establish any legal or enforceable right on their part for getting the relief as prayed for by them. Successfully they were involved in forum shopping and are attempting to get orders from this court to prolong their illegal occupation in forest land. Certainly, this court will not be a party to encourage the petitioners' attempt to derail the orders of the Supreme Court.
31.Under these circumstances, there is no case made out by the petitioners. Accordingly, all the writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, this court though could have ordered exemplary costs but refrain from doing so since the petitioners were guided by the advise of their counsel. Hence there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
vvk To
1.The Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Forest and Environment, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
3.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul