ALEYAMMA Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOREST AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, MADRAS AND THE FOREST SETTLEMENT OFFICER, GUDALUR, THE NILGIRIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is claiming herself to be in possession of the portion of the land in S.No.437/2 in Padanthorai Village, Gudalur Taluk, Nilgiris District. The said land is a pasture land and the petitioner is using the same for grazing cows and buffaloes for more than 20 years. Pursuant to the order of the Government under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), a publication was made under Section 4 of "the Act" on 15.6.92 notifying various lands including the land in question to be a reserved forest. A proclamation was also made under Section 6 of "the Act" on 1.7.94. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the petitioner was in possession of the land in question, she was not given any notice as provided under Section 6(d) of "the Act" and therefore, the petitioner was not aware of the proclamation. However, after the enquiry was conducted under Section 8 of "the Act", the Forest Settlement Officer passed an order under Section 10 of "the Act" on 30.3.85. When the petitioner came to know of the above proceedings only in the year 1996, she made an application under Section 17 of "the Act" before the Forest Settlement Officer, the second respondent for exclusion of the said land from the proclamation. The said request of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order dated 27.5.96 of the second respondent on the ground that he had already passed orders under Section 10 of "the Act" on 30.3.85 in respect of the land. The said order is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) MR . B.Ramamoorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner ought to have been given a notice under Section 6(d) of "the Act" since the petitioner was in possession of the land before the second respondent conducted enquiry under Section 8 and passed orders under Section 10 of "the Act" on 30.3.85. Further, the learned counsel submitted that under Section 17 of "the Act", the right of the petitioner to seek for exemption is not extinguished till such time notification declaring as reserved forest is made under Section 16 of "the Act". Admittedly, the notification as required under Section 16 has not been so far made and therefore, the rejection of the request of petitioner for exclusion of the land on the ground that orders under Section 10 has already been passed by the Forest Settlement Officer cannot be sustained.

(3.) I have given my due consideration to the submissions of the respective counsel. Insofar as the grievance of the petitioner that she is entitled to an individual notice under Section 6(d) of "the Act", this Court cannot go into the disputed questions of facts as to whether the petitioner was in possession of the land on the date of proclamation as the second respondent has taken a specific stand that the petitioner was not in possession on the date when the proclamation was made. However, for the purpose of considering the validity of the impugned order, Section 16 and 17 of the Forest Act can be usefully referred to and hence the same are extracted as follows: -