V K BALARAMA CHETTY Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of appeals has been filed against the order of Chandra Reddi J. and they raise the question of the constitutional validity of Section 3 (2) of the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The facts are not in dispute and they lie in a small compass. The land-holders of the various estates applied to the Collector concerned under Section 3 (2) of the Act for permission to cut the trees in the forests situated in their respective estates. The Collectors by their laconic orders refused to give the permission without assigning any reason for the same. Aggrieved by the orders of the Collectors, the land-holders filed petitions in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing Writs of mandamus to direct the State to forbear from interfering with the enjoyment of the forests. Their main, if not the sole, ground of attack against the orders was that the aforesaid section, preventing the owner of a forest from cutting trees therein without the previous permission of the District Collector, infringes the fundamental right enshrined in Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution of India, namely, to acquire, hold and dispose of property, and therefore, was constitutionally void. Chandra Reddi J. who heard the petitions in the first instance, held that the said restrictions were reasonable restrictions imposed in the interests of the general public within the meaning of Article 19 (5) of the Constitution and, therefore, the appellants' fundamental right to hold and dispose of the property was not in any way infringed. He also held that the said section was also not hit at by the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the result, he dismissed the petitions. Hence the appeals.

(3.) The impugned sub-section and the provisions of the Constitution on the basis of which the validity of the section is questioned read thus : THE MADRAS PRESERVATION OF PRIVATE FORESTS ACT, 1949 :