Allowed

The District Forest Officer v. G.Thirumalaiammal (Died) 1. M Shunmugam

Madras HC22 Aug 2025CRP(MD)/2100/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State forest authorities sought to set aside dismissal of their restoration petition after their delay-condonation application for filing an appeal over suit land was dismissed for default. The High Court allowed the revision, condoned the delay despite no proper explanation, and directed the trial court to restore the I.A., number and dispose of the first appeal.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; trial court directed to restore I.A., number the first appeal and dispose of it in accordance with law; no costs; miscellaneous petition closed.

The District Forest Officer Vs G.Thirumalaiammal (Died)… — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.2100 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.2100 of 2025

¶7

and

¶8

C.M.P.(MD)No.12206 of 2025

¶9

1.The District Forest Officer,

¶10

Tirunelveli District.

¶11

2.The Forest Range Officer,

¶12

Courtallam Range,

¶13

Shencottai, Tenkasi District.

¶14

3.The Tahsildar,

¶15

Tenkasi.

¶16

4.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the District Collector, Tirunelveli District. ...Petitioners

¶17

Vs.

¶18

1/7

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

C.R.P.(MD)No.2100 of 2025

¶21

G.Thirumalaiammal (Died)

¶22

1.M.Shunmugam 2.M.Subbammal 3.A.Kuthalammal 4.M.Vanasundari 5.M.Vanarajanm Asokan (Died) 6.M.Paulraj 7.M.Balasubramanian

¶23

...Respondents

¶24

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in I.A.No.117 of 2012 in unnumbered A.S. on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi dated 09.06.2025 and consequently allow the Civil Revision Petition.

¶25

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Saravanan

¶26

Additional Government Pleader

¶27

For Respondents : No appearance

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in I.A.No.117 of 2012 in unnumbered A.S. on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi dated 09.06.2025.

¶30

2/7

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

C.R.P.(MD)No.2100 of 2025

¶33

¶34

2. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners would submit that the suit schedule property is situated in the reserve forest area for which the respondents / plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, by way of adverse possession and the decree was granted in their favour, as against which the petitioners have not preferred the appeal in time. Thereafter, the petitioners filed I.A.No.117 of 2012, before the Sub Court, Tenkasi, seeking to condone the delay of 1615 days in filing the appeal. The said delay petition was dismissed for default. Again, the petitioners filed restoration petition in I.A.No.1 of 2024, with a delay of 1717 days delay and the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶35

3. Though the names of the respondents are printed in the cause list, there is no representation on their behalf. Considering the pendency of this Civil Revision Petition, this Court is inclined to dispose of this Civil Revision Petition with the available records.

¶36

4. Learned Additional Government Pleader for the petitioners would submit that admittedly, there was enormous delay in filing the I.A.117 of 2012,

¶37

3/7

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

C.R.P.(MD)No.2100 of 2025

¶40

in filing the appeal. However, the same was dismissed for default on 21.02.2019. For restoration, again there was a huge delay of nearly 1717 days. All those delay occurred only due to the inaction of the officials of the forest department, for which the appropriate authority will take disciplinary action against the concerned officials for not filing appeal in time and not taken steps to restore the same. He would further submit that for the fault of the officials of the forest department, the lands which are allegedly classified as reserve forest cannot be allowed to be encroached and enjoyed by private individuals and the same is contrary to the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and accordingly, prays for appropriate orders.

¶41

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since the reserve

¶42

forest area was sought to be encroached, though there has been enormous delay and there has been no proper explanation for the delay, the forest lands cannot be allowed to be enjoyed by private individuals. Also the petitioners themselves have come forward to take disciplinary action against the officials concerned. Further the lower appellate Court has to consider whether the suit schedule land is reserve forest land or private land and the same is a moot question before the appellate court, for which no serious prejudice is caused to the respondents.

¶43

4/7

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

C.R.P.(MD)No.2100 of 2025

¶46

6.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the delay is

¶47

condoned and the trial Court is directed to restore the I.A. and number the first appeal and dispose of the first appeal in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶48

22.08.2025

¶49

Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No MR

¶50

5/7

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

C.R.P.(MD)No.2100 of 2025

¶53

¶54

1.The Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi.

¶55

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶56

6/7

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

C.R.P.(MD)No.2100 of 2025

¶59

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶60

¶61

C.R.P.(MD)No.2100 of 2025

¶62

22.08.2025

¶63

7/7

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The District Forest Officer v. G.Thirumalaiammal (Died) 1. M Shunmugam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The District Forest Officer v. G.Thirumalaiammal (Died) 1. M Shunmugam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Saraswathi Vs The Director

G.Janaki Vs The District Educational Officer, (Elementary)

S.Kavitha Vs The Principal Accountant General (a and E)

Ravi Vs Ganapathi Pillai (Died) 1. Periyanayaki

S.Chidambaram Vs The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Jayasingh Vs Shahul Hameed