SRI PERARULALA RAMANUJA JEER SWAMI Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL THROUGH THE COLLECTOR OF TINNEVELLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my opinion the suit is not barred by any provision of the Madras Forest Act. The forest in question was reserved under Section 25 of that Act as one which had been reserved by order of Government previous to the day on which the Act came into force.

(2.) Before the Act came into force the forests were visited by a committee who took evidence on claims to various rights within the area which it was proposed to reserve and reported their opinion upon them to the Board of Revenue and the Government. Atthis enquiry claims were made on behalf of the institution now represented by the present plaintiff--a claim of a right to cut firewood free within the whole Tirukarangudi forest and a claim of a right to the free enjoyment for temple purposes of the forest at Nambikovil and for two miles westward. That is not the present claim there was no claim before the committee of any right of ownership in the forest itself (this is clear from the report) and consequently no enquiry into and no settlement or record of any such claim. And the Government Order Exhibit III does not refer to any such claim as is now made and does not decide one. In short, the claim was not raised and, therefore, was not a question decided under Section 25. And Secs.6 and 17 are not applicable so as to extinguish a right merely because it was not claimed at an enquiry by the Forest Committee. We have not been shown that the Forest Committee were authorised to decide a claim in the way the Forest Settlement Officer can decide claims under the Act, or that any intimation was given to possible claimants that rights not claimed would be extinguished. In the absence of any such notice as is now given by Section 17, it would be wrong so to apply the provisions of Section 25 as to give retrospective effect to Section 17; moreover, Section 25 would not support such a construction; it refers only to questions which have been decided, orders which have been issued or records which have been prepared and has no application to a claim which has never been made.

(3.) I find in these circumstances nothing in the Forest Act to bar the suit. Nor do. I think the claim is barred by limitation: it is claimed that the Government by surrounding the reserved forest with cairns and excluding cattle took effective possession of the whole area including the portion claimed by the plaintiff, but there is nothing to show that any cattle of the plaintiff were excluded or that the erection of the cairns in any way altered or disturbed the plaintiff's enjoyment of the land, whatever was the nature of that enjoyment or even that it gave notice to the plaintiff that their enjoyment was intended to be disturbed.