(1.) With the consent of both the parties hearing of the writ appeal has been taken up.
(2.) Writ petitioner - respondents have claimed to have inherited cultivating possession from their ancestors of the disputed land and questioned interference with their possession by the forest authorities on the ground that their occupation of the land is illegal, the land being forming part of the reserved forest, vide notification dated 4-11-1919 under Section 16 of the Madras Forest Act, 1882. The legislative history reveals that the Madras Act received a new name without any substantial alteration called
(3.) Petitioner - respondents have not been able to show how they retain the right to cultivate the land and whether such a right has devolved upon them by succession. Nonetheless, they have claimed that their fore fathers have been cultivating and they continued to cultivate the land until the forest officials started interfering with their possession and took steps to dispossess them. Since they werecultivating the land, it is alleged, forest officials seized their agricultural implements and also lodged against them prosecutions under the Forest Act. They have made representation, it appears, in the hope that the Chief Executive of the State shall come to their rescue, to the Chief Minister of the State. Learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petition by the order, inter alia, which is as follows: