Petitioner sought permission to slaughter trees on property where title was previously decided in favor of the State. Court relied on Tamil Nadu Forest Act provisions, held petitioner not entitled to usufructs, and dismissed writ petition.
Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus dismissed; no costs awarded; direction to respondents omitted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P. (MD) No. 27866 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.12.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
W.P. (MD) No. 27866 of 2022
S.Yesudhas
... Petitioner
Vs.
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the second respondent pertaining to its order bearing Na.Ka.No.Va1/5341/2022, dated 08.07.2022 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to grant permission to slaughter the rubber trees and other trees planted by us and standing at Re-survey No.602 of Therisanamcope Village, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
For Petitioner : Mr. S.C.Herold Singh
1/6
For R1 & R2
W.P. (MD) No. 27866 of 2022
: Mr. S.R.A.Ramachandran
Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
Heard Mr. S.C.Herold Singh, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner,
Mr. S.R.A.Ramachandran, Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record apart from the pleadings of the parties.
2/6
W.P. (MD) No. 27866 of 2022
decree dated 26.08.2019 in S.A. (MD) No. 400 of 2018, which has attained finality. Thereafter, the Petitioner claims to have made a representation dated 24.02.2022 to cut rubber trees and other trees in the said property to the Second Respondent and this Court by order dated 05.04.2022 in W.P. (MD) No. 6176 of 2012 directed the Second Respondent to pass orders thereon within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of that order. Since the said representation has been rejected by Proceedings in Na. Ka. No. V1/5341/2022 dated 08.07.2022 passed by the Second Respondent, the Petitioner has assailed the same in this Writ Petition.
68-A of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, which is extracted below:-
“68-A. Any person unauthorisedly occupying any land in reserved forest or any land at the disposal of Government may be summarily evicted by an officer of Forest Department not below the rank of Forest Ranger or an officer of the Revenue Department not below
3/6
W.P. (MD) No. 27866 of 2022
the rank of Tahsildar, having jurisdiction over the area in which such land is situated, in such manner as may be prescribed and any
crop or other produce raised on such land, shall be liable to
forfeiture and any building or other construction erected or anything deposited thereon, shall also be liable to forfeiture. Forfeiture under this section, shall be adjudged by the officer referred to above and any property so forfeited, shall be disposed of in such manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that no eviction or adjudication under this section
adversely affecting a person shall be made or adjudged, unless-
(a) such person has been given a notice in such manner as may be prescribed; and
notice has been duly considered by such offer concerned.”
Inasmuch as the title to the property has been decided in favour of the State, the crops and produce raised on such land are liable for forfeiture, which would obviously mean that the Petitioner is not entitled to the benefits claimed in the
4/6
W.P. (MD) No. 27866 of 2022
representation made by him.
21.12.2022
ta
Index : Yes/No
Note: Issue order copy by 27.01.2023.
To
5/6
W.P. (MD) No. 27866 of 2022
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
ta
W.P. (MD) No.27866 of 2022
Dated : 21.12.2022
6/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to cut trees on forest land where title stands with the State under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to consideration of the rejected representation regarding tree felling.
Whether the Writ Petition challenging the rejection of the representation deserves to be entertained.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.Yesudhas
The District Collector, Kanyakumari District
The District Forest Officer, Nagercoil
P.D. Audikesavalu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
