S.MATHALAI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The suit was for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction, directing the first defendant to grant patta to the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the unsuccessful plaintiff has come by way of this Second Appeal.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally formed part of erstwhile Gandamanur Zamin, comprised in old Zamin Patta No.152. The suit property originally belonged to one M.Subramania Iyer and he sold the suit land to one Krishnasami Gounder under an unregistered sale deed, dtd. 9/11/1957. The vendee under the document had taken over the possession of the suit property and enjoyed the same. Subsequently, he sold the suit property to the plaintiff under Ex.A-3, dtd. 25/3/1963. It was further contended by the plaintiff that in the sale deed in his favour, the survey number of the suit property was wrongly mentioned as 27/N instead of 27/Z. Subsequently, Zamin Abolition Act came into force and the plaintiff applied for issue of Ryotwari Patta under the said Act. The Commissioner of Land Administration passed an order, rejecting the claim of the plaintiff on 27/3/1992. It was further contended by the plaintiff that when his claim was pending before the settlement authorities, the Forest Department initiated proceedings to notify the area, including the suit property, as a forest area and since the notification was issued when the settlement proceeding was pending, the same was invalid. It was also contended that the Revenue Department issued B-Memos to the plaintiff and he has been paying tax to the total extent of 17 acres of the suit property. Thus, claiming that the plaintiff and his predecessors have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff sought for declaration of title and other reliefs.

(3.) The defendants filed a written statement and contended that 55000 acres in the suit village, namely, Megamalai was declared as reserve forest under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity) and hence the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. It was also contended by the defendants that a notification under Sec. 4 of the Act was issued by the Government, notifying Megamalai village as a forest area and necessary proposals have been submitted to the Government to declare the same as reserve forest. Therefore, it was contended by the defendants that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred under Sec. 4 of the Act.