VV RAMAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR NILGIRIS DISTRICT UDHAGAMANDALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the above writ petition on the following averments in the affidavit. The District Collector, Nilgiris by his proceedings No. Pa. Mu. 17951/2001 dated 6. 4. 2001 ordered to cut and remove the bluecum trees standing in Survey No. 165 of Manjanakorai, Ooty under Section 133 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The second respondent had conducted public auction on 22. 1. 2004 for sale of the said trees and the petitioner was successful bidder in the public auction and paid a total sum of Rs. 25,100/ -. The District Collector confirmed the auction sale in favour of the petitioner. The second respondent-Tahsildar thereafter by his proceedings No. Na. Ka. A-6 261/04 dated 14. 5. 2004 issued cutting order and permitted the petitioner to cut and remove the same. These trees also have been identified by the Revenue authorities. While the petitioner was cutting the trees and removing the same, the Forest officials seized the same and did not permit the petitioner to remove the same. Though the petitioner produced the orders issued by the second respondent, the Forest officials did not permit the petitioner to remove the same.

(2.) THE petitioner submitted number of representations to the respondents 1 and 2 and also caused a lawyer's notice dated 2. 8. 2004 to the second respondent to take necessary steps to release the logs seized by the forest Officials. Thereafter, the first respondent by his letter no. Mu. Mu/50848/04 dated 15. 10. 2004 addressed to the third respondent narrated under what circumstances the trees were ordered to be cut from the land which is classified as Saduppu in the Revenue records and the first respondent is empowered to order to remove the dangerous trees from the said land and requested the third respondent to direct the subordinate Officials to permit the auction purchaser to remove the tree logs. In spite of the said letter, the third respondent has not taken any steps to release the logs. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to release the bluecum logs seized by the subordinates officials from the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard Ms. Selvi George, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest ). Learned Special Government Pleader (Forest), on instructions, submitted that since there is no provisions in the Forest Act to permit the petitioner to remove the trees lying in reserved forest, the third respondent has not permitted the petitioner to remove the logs. The learned Special government Pleader (Forest) has also made an endorsement to the effect that the third respondent is not filing any counter.