Dismissed

P.Selvaraj v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC1 Mar 2022WP/32703/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a patta application. The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste member, claimed rights under the 2006 Forest Rights Act. The Court held he was ineligible as the Act applies to Scheduled Tribes, not SCs, and the land was earmarked for specific tribes, confirming the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Confirmation of the order dated 30.07.2014 rejecting the petitioner's application for patta.

P.Selvaraj Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶5

W.P.NO.32703 OF 2014

¶6

P.Selvaraj ... Petitioner Vs.

¶7

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to the Government Revenue Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶8

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Government Environment and Forest Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶9

The District Collector Namakkal, Namakkal District.

¶10

The Tahsildar Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.

¶11

The District Forest Officer Namakkal, Namakkal District.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.8916/2014/L-1 (2-70), dated 30.07.2014 and quash the same and thereby direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, read with the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2007 for issuance of patta to the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.Muthukumaran

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

for Mr.V.Thirupathi

¶17

For R1 to R4

¶18

: Mr.M.Rajendiran Additional Government Pleader

¶19

For R5

¶20

: Mr.T.Arun Kumar Additional Government Pleader (Forest)

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Heard the submissions.

¶23

2.The petitioner is claiming himself in absolute and continuous possession and enjoyment of land comprising in unsurvey block No.2, Naraikinar, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District. He has converted the lands, which were in irregular in shape, barren and uncultivable into cultivable agricultural lands and has also applied for patta to the said land and the said request was rejected by the third respondent by his order dated 30.07.2014.

¶24

3.According to the petitioner this matter was agitated before this Court in W.A.No.376 of 2008, wherein, considering the rights of the Scheduled Caste and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 20.10.2009, has directed the Government to consider the issuance of Patta to the similarly placed persons like petitioner and in spite of the same, the request made by the petitioner was also rejected.

¶25

4.A perusal of the impugned order shows that the land for which Patta was sought is concerned, it is found that the land was earmarked as per Board's Standing Order 15(40) for Hill Tribes viz., Kunduni Nadu taraf, Alattur Nadu taraf, Tiruppuli Nadu taraf, Edappuli Nadu taraf, Sittur Nadu taraf, Pirakkarai Nadu taraf, Bail Nadu taraf, Unanthangal taraf.

¶26

5.Admittedly, the petitioner belong to Scheduled Caste and he does not belong to any of the sections of Scheduled Tribes. Section 2(c) and 2(o) of Act 2007 clearly define that the Tribes, who were living inside the forest and depending on the forest produce for their livelihood or those who live for more than three generations prior to 13.12.2005 that is for 75 years, are entitled to get exemption from the Notification.

¶27

6.In the instant case, the petitioner claims that he belongs to Hindu Adi Dravida Scheduled Caste as per his own statement. Therefore, the petitioner being a Schedule Caste, would not be entitled to the rights available on the Schedule Tribes under Section 2 of Act 2007. Particularly, the land was

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

earmarked for the Malayalis or Sholagas of Schedule Tribes. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim for any right for issuance of Patta for the lands which were specifically earmarked for the Malayalis or Sholagas of Schedule Tribes under the Board Standing Order 15(40) Hill Tribes – Conditional Assignment. Therefore, I do not find any discrepancy in the order passed by the third respondent.

¶30

7.Accordingly, the order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.8916/2014/L-1(2-70) dated 30.07.2014 is hereby confirmed and the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶33

//True Copy//

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

Dua/tk

¶36

¶37