LAWS(MAD)-2008-8-217

RAMASAMY Vs. FOREST RANGER

Decided On August 29, 2008
RAMASAMY Appellant
V/S
FOREST RANGER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been directed against the Judgment and decree in A. S. No. 78 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, which had arisen out of the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 248 of 2000 on the file of the First Additional District Judge / Judicial Magistrate Noi, Villupuram, is under challenge in this second appeal. The plaintiff who has lost his case before both the Courts below is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE averments in the plaint in brief sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:-The plaint schedule property belongs to the Tamil Nadu Government. It is a barren land. The plaintiff's father had encroached upon the plaint schedule property and was in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death. After the life time of the plaintiff's father, his brother Marimuthu was enjoying the plaint schedule property and after his life time the plaintiff came into possession of the plaint schedule property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same for the past 25 years. The plaintiff along with brother had dug a well in the plaint schedule property to the depth of 15 yards and has installed an oil motor pump-set and with the help of the same, he is irrigating the land. The plaintiff has also constructed a thatched hut in a portion of the suit property and he is residing there. The plaintiff is also paying penal interest to the government. On the north and east of the suit property Ramanathapuram Road runs and the land situated to the east of the said road is the forest belonging to the forest department. There is no connection between the plaint schedule property and the forest department. At this juncture, the first defendant is often making attempts to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property and insisting the plaintiff to remove and close the well and to remove the oil engine. At no point of time the revenue officials have made any objections for the plaintiff to enjoy the plaint schedule property, but only the people belong to the forest department are making attempts to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. One such attempt was made on 20. 08. 2000. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also filed necessary application before the District Collector for issuance of patta in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property. He has also approached the Tahsildar Ulundoorpet for issuance of patta. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction.

(3.) THE second and third defendants have adopted the written statement filed by the first defendant as follows:-The plaintiff schedule property is not a barren land belonging to the Tamil Nadu Government. The plaint schedule property is a forest land belonging to the Forest Department. The suit property is situated in S. No. 47, Sridevi Village, Ulundoorpet. There is no road on the north or on the east of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff without the permission of the Forest Department had laid the road on 28. 3. 2000 in the plaint schedule property and the same was informed to the District Forest Officer also and a separate proceedings is pending in this regard. The suit property is a reserve forest land. The suit property was surveyed on 3. 9. 2000 by the survey department. The allegation that for the past 25 years the plaintiff and before him his uncle and brother were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property are all denied as false. The plaintiff never dug the well in the suit property and has not irrigated the suit property with the help of an oil engine. Till today the plaint schedule property is being treated as a reserve forest by the forest department. The revenue department has no locus standi to levy penal interest to the plaintiff. D1 and D2 are maintaining the suit property as a forest land. The suit is not maintainable. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.