Madras High Court
Saramma vs The District Forest Officer on 2 February, 2021
C.M.S.A.Nos.1, 5, 3, 51, 2, 6, 16, 4 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.S.A.Nos.1, 5, 3, 51, 2, 6, 16, 4 of 2006
C.M.S.A.No.1 of 2006
Saramma ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The District Forest Officer,
Gudalur,
The Nilgiris.
2.The Forest Settlement Officer,
Gudalur,
The Nilgiris.
.. Respondents
Prayer in C.M.S.A.No.1 of 2006: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal
filed under Section 10(2) of T.N.Forest Act, 1882 r/w. Sec. 100 of
C.P.C., against the order dated 04.01.2005 made in C.M.A.No.22 of
2004 on the file of the District Judge, The Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam,
by confirming the order of the second respondent made in R.C.A.No.318
of 1983 dated 31.03.2004, on the file of the Forest Settlement Officer,
Gudalur in so far as the claim of the petitioner is partly disallowed in
R.C.A.No.318 of 1983.
In C.M.S.A.No.1 of 2006
For Appellant : Mr.M.Venkateswaran
For Respondents : Mr.S.Prabhu, AGP (Forest)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.Nos.1, 5, 3, 51, 2, 6, 16, 4 of 2006
COMMON JUDGMENT
The orders made in C.M.A.Nos.22, 24, 25 26, 28, 30 of 2004
dated 04.01.2005, C.M.A.No.59 of 2003 dated 28.09.2004 and
C.M.A.No.23 of 2005 dated 13.12.2005 are under challenge in the
present civil miscellaneous second appeals.
2. Interestingly, the questions of law raised in these appeals are:
1. whether the Lower Appellate Court, on
consideration of oral and documental evidence, arrived at
a just conclusion?
2. whether the appellant is entitled to get patta for
the land under occupation instead of partly allowed by
the authorities below, in view of his continued
occupation for more than 28 years?
Both the questions are related to the facts and cannot be considered as
substantial questions of law which deserves further adjudication under
Section 100 of C.P.C.
3. The Forest Settlement Officer, Gudalur, The Nilgiris,
adjudicated the issues under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act.
The Settlement Officer conducted an enquiry under Section 8 of the
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.Nos.1, 5, 3, 51, 2, 6, 16, 4 of 2006
Tamil Nadu Forest Act and an award was passed. The Settlement
Officer held that some of the lands were excluded with reference to
some claimants. The petitions were dismissed in toto. In other words,
the claim of few claimants were allowed in part. In respect of other
claimants, the petitions were rejected totally.
4. In respect of the claimants whose petitions were partly allowed,
preferred civil miscellaneous appeals before the District Court, Nilgiris,
Uthagamandalam. The learned District Judge elaborately adjudicated the
facts and circumstances as well as the grounds raised by the appellants
and arrived a finding that as per the orders passed by this Court in
W.P.Nos.13624 to 13628 of 1999, the lands occupied are belonged to
the Government and such lands occupied by encroachment cannot be
treated as occupied lands and payment of penal levy will not regularize
their occupation. In an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.641 of 1996, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed
the following order:
“We are of the view that in the District of Ooty,
encroachment of forest land is increasing day by day.
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.Nos.1, 5, 3, 51, 2, 6, 16, 4 of 2006
We cannot appreciate the apathy of the Government
officers and the Government in taking action against
such encroachers. It is the safety and security of the
forest that ensure the ecological balance in the District
of Ooty. Therefore, we direct that State Government to
take appropriate action in accordance with law for
eviction of the encroachers. ”
5. The Hon'ble Division Bench directed that the Government
should take action in respect of such encroachment in accordance with
law in the District of Uthagamandalam. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in its decision in W.P.(C).202 of 1995 dated 07.05.1999, has
passed a general order in I.A.No.400 etc., that no patta with regard to
any forest land shall be granted nor shall any encroachment be
regularized. It is further directed that both the Hon'ble Division Bench
of this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that
the encroachment should not be regularized and no patta should be
granted for encroachers. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and this Court, the first appellate Court dismissed all the
appeals filed by the claimants.
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.Nos.1, 5, 3, 51, 2, 6, 16, 4 of 2006
6. As far as the present civil miscellaneous second appeals are
concerned, the appellants have not raised any substantial question of law
which deserves any further adjudication on the issues. This apart, the
first Appellate Court relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
dismissed the appeals by disallowing the claim of the claimants for grant
of patta and regularize their occupation.
7. In this view of the matter, the appeals deserve no merit and
consideration and consequently, orders passed in C.M.A.Nos.22, 24, 25
26, 28, 30 of 2004 dated 04.01.2005, C.M.A.No.59 of 2003 dated
28.09.2004 and C.M.A.No.23 of 2005 dated 13.12.2005 stands
confirmed and C.M.S.A.Nos.1, 5, 3, 51, 2, 6, 16, 4 of 2006 stands
dismissed. No costs.
02.02.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
gsk
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.Nos.1, 5, 3, 51, 2, 6, 16, 4 of 2006
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
gsk
To
1.The District Judge,
The Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam.
2.The Forest Settlement Officer, Gudalur.
C.M.S.A.Nos.1, 5, 3, 51, 2, 6, 16, 4 of 2006
02.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
