C KALIAMMAL AND ORS Vs. FOREST RANGE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been listed before us on a reference by Bakthavatsalam, J., who has noticed a conflict of his views with a judgment of this Court in Kodaikanal Wattle Bark Vyaparikal Sangam V. State Of Tamil Nadu, 1985 2 MadLJ 67 . Since we propose to dispose of the petitions by not merely answering the reference but deciding all the issues involved in the case we have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length.

(2.) Before, however, we advert to the facts of the case, we may at this stage refer to the order of reference which says:

(3.) It seems, however, that a reference to Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 (XVII of 1955), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is misplaced. The facts of the case do not warrant any examination of the term "damage" used in the said section beyond examining the same to understand the effect of the provisions in Section 3 of the Act as a whole, but since the facts of the case when examined in the light of the scheme of the Act, reveal that a fresh look to the so-called peeling off of wattle bark has to be given and in that context, the view expressed in the case of Kodaikanal Wattle Bark Vyaparikal Sangam V. State Of Tamil Nadu, 1985 2 MadLJ 67 , evaluated, we proceed accordingly to first take notice of the provisions of the Act followed by the statement of law in the case of Kodaikanal Wattle Bark Vyaparikal Sangam V. State Of Tamil Nadu, 1985 2 MadLJ 67 , and next, the facts of the case.