Madras High Court
The District Forest Officer vs Mohan Rajes on 23 July, 2021
A.S.No.5 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 23.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
A.S.No.5 of 2013
1.The District Forest Officer,
Salem.
2.The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department, Chennai - 9.
3.The Collector of Salem,
Collectorate, Salem - 1. ... Appellants
-Vs-
Soundara Rajesh (died)
1.Mohan Rajes
2.Gowri Pandyinathan ...Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the
Judgment and Decree dated 22.09.2010 passed in O.S.No.110 of 2006 on
the file of the Additional District Judge, Salem and Fast Track Court
No.2, Salem.
1/16
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.5 of 2013
For Appellants : Mr.Edwin Prabakar, GA(CS)
For Respondents : Mr.S.Sethuraman for R1 and R2
********
JUDGMENT
The Appeal suit is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated
22.09.2010 passed in O.S.No.110 of 2006 on the file of the Additional
District Judge, Salem and Fast Track Court No.2, Salem.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their ranking in the trial Court.
3. The said Suit has been filed for directing the defendants to
handover the sandal wood weighing 6130 kgs or the market value of the
sandal wood.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.5 of 2013
4. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs are the owner of
the property comprised in Survey Nos.44/1, 44/3A and 45 of Solur
Village in Yercaud Taluk, Salem District.
4.1. The suit property herein consists of coffee, cardamom, orange
clove, nutmeg and other fruit bearing trees besides some sandal wood.
Therefore, the plaintiffs sought for the assistance of the Forest
Department to remove and store the Sandalwood trees. After a period of
6 years, the Forest Department visited the property and directed to cut
and store the Sandalwood in the Government Sandalwood Depot Godown
and issued letters dated 08.02.1993, 13.09.1993 and 06.10.1993
certifying the village and Survey Number, from which, the sandalwood
had been removed. The Forest Department also issued transport permits
to transport the wood to the Government Sandalwood Depot for safe
custody. The pitting, extraction, sizing and removal from the estate was
done at the sole cost of the plaintiffs.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.5 of 2013
4.2. On 24.11.1992 by permit No.386 and invoice No.6/92 as per
the directions of the first defendant, the Sandalwood weighing 3020 kgs
was transferred to the Government Deport by Lorry No.MDL-774 and
the same was acknowledged on 25.11.1992. Further by permit No.387
and invoice No.7/92, a quantity of 3110 kgs sent through Lorty No.TDS-
7045 was deposited in the Government Depot and the same was also
acknowledged on 25.11.1992. Hence the total quantity received and
acknowledged was 6130 kgs.
4.3. After the deposit in the years 1992 / 1993 for which, the
defendants failed to give any final out-turned acknowledgments even after
several communications and reminders were sent. The plaintiffs had
made it clear to the defendants about their title to the property and
requested only to clean and dress the Sandalwood delivered to the
defendants and informed that they should refrain from selling the same
until authorized. The first defendant by the letter dated 06.10.1993,
18.06.1993 and 14.10.1993 confirmed that the plaintiffs would be given
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.5 of 2013
an opportunity to be present when the wood was being cleaned and out-
turned and that it would be done in his presence.
4.4. Inspite of several letters during the course of 1992 to 2001,
none of these requests were attended by the Department, since the value
of the Sandalwood was considerable, deteriorating and as they have been
exposed to sun and rain for the past several years. Therefore, the
plaintiffs filed the said suit seeking to direct the defendants to handover
the possession of the Sandalwood and permit to sell the same.
4.5. It was further averred that the plaintiffs handed over 6130 kgs
of raw Sandalwood which would weigh 735.6 kgs when it is cleaned,
which would be 12% weight of the raw Sandalwood. The percentage
taken above is as per the normal practice followed by the Forest
Department. The present value per kgs of cleaned Sandalwood is
Rs.2500/-. The plaintiffs value for asking possession of the Sandalwood
is 735.6 kgs x Rs.2500 = Rs.18,39,000/- and paying Court Fees. Hence
the Suit.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.5 of 2013
5. Resisting the same, the defendants filed a written statement
stating that it is the duty of the plaintiffs to inform to the Forest
Department. It is not known as to whether the land in question is
registered as a patta land as stipulated in the G.O.Ms.No.1459, Revenue,
dated 19.09.1924 and unless it is produced by the plaintiffs, the
ownership cannot be established. Mere possession of Sandalwood will
not entitle the plaintiffs to claim title over the property. In fact, the
plaintiffs duly informed the first defendant by the letter dated 21.09.1995
seeking time for production of records, after which, the plaintiffs failed to
produce any ownership certificate so far. They also denied the quantity of
Sandalwood certain 6130 kgs and also denied the acknowledgment.
5.1. In the written statement it has been further stated that in
G.O.Ms.No.120 Forests and Fisheries Department dated 17.02.1979, it
has been clearly stated that the ownership certificate is vested with
Government. When the plaintiffs failed to prove their ownership of the
property, they cannot say that the Sandalwood belongs to them. The
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.5 of 2013
Sandalwood in question was cleaned on 14.05.1994 and it was sold in the
year 1994 itself. As per the provisions, it is the duty of the persons to
apply for the registration of the property mark in respect of Sandalwood
to be extracted from Private Lands within the State accompanied by a
Statement in Form IV.
5.2. After the receipt of such application, the District Forest Officer
may authorize the Subordinates to fix hammer seal on each tree. Even
according to the plaintiffs, the Sandalwood were cut down and it is
against the rules. It is their duty to inform the Department about the said
fact. Therefore, the plaintiffs have not followed the established
procedures and in order to avoid any action which may be taken by the
Forest Department, the plaintiffs deposited the Sandalwood in the
Department. Even till the date of filing the suit, the plaintiffs failed to
prove that they are the owners of the land. That apart, the calculation
made by the plaintiffs is in no way connected with the true position and
the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. Hence they prayed for
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.5 of 2013
dismissal of the said suit.
6. On completion of the rival pleadings, the learned Trial Judge
framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs is entitled to the relief of
directing the defendants to handover the
Sandalwood as mentioned in the plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiffs has followed the
Sandalwood Transit Rules or not?
3. Whether the plaintiffs is entitled for the relief
sought for?
4. To what relief?
7. On perusal of the records, it is seen that on the side of the
plaintiffs P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and 32 documents were
marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A32. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was
examined and 4 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B4. On
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.5 of 2013
considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective
parties and the submissions made by the respective learned counsel, the
Court below decreed the suit and fixed the value of Rs.2500/- per kg for
the cleaned Sandalwood weighing 735.69 kgs. Aggrieved by the same,
the defendants preferred this Appeal Suit.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the
plaintiffs failed to prove their ownership of the land, in which, the
Sandalwood were cut down and as such they are not entitled to any relief
as prayed by them. As per G.O.Ms.No.1459 dated 19.09.1924, if the
patta is assigned, then only the plaintiffs entitled for compensation. The
plaintiffs wrote a letter dated 21.09.1995 to the District Forest Officer to
clean the Sandalwood and sought more time to produce the patta. The
plaintiffs failed to produce the requisite patta or certificate and
Sandalwoods were sold during the month of July 1994 itself. The total
price obtained from the sold goods was Rs.8,71,667/-, in which, the
plaintiffs are entitled to a compensation of 47.5% of the sale price as per
the G.O.Ms.No.126 dated 06.03.1940 and that too with a condition that
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.5 of 2013
the plaintiffs submit records of the suit property assigned prior to
19.09.1924. He also disputed the quantum of Sandalwood which was
received from the plaintiffs. During the year 1992 / 1993 the average
price for the cleaned lot was fixed at Rs.2,35,832/- per ton. If the
plaintiffs produce certificate for the lands which were assigned prior to
19.09.1924, then the amount to be paid to the plaintiffs is only
Rs.41,40,042/- as per the calculation submitted by the defendants.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would
contend that the plaintiffs proved that the land in which the Sandalwood
were cut down was owned by them and it was marked as Ex.A1 the sale
deed. After purchase, as there was a dispute between the family members
of the plaintiffs, they filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.501 of 1975 on
the file of Sub Court, Salem, in which, the final decree was passed and it
was allotted to the plaintiffs, the decree of which were marked as Ex.A2.
Thereafter, they obtained patta in their names. The quantum of the
Sandalwood, which was cut down, was also categorically proved by the
plaintiffs through Ex.A7 and Ex.A8. Accordingly, by permit No.386
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.5 of 2013
dated 24.11.1992 and invoice No.6/92 the first defendant duly
acknowledged the Sandalwood weighing 3020 kg. Further permit
No.387 and invoice No.7/92, the quantity of 3110 kg was also duly
received by the first defendant on 25.11.1992. Thus the plaintiffs
categorically proved that the first defendant received and acknowledged
the Sandalwood and the total weight-age is 6130 kgs. Insofar as the price
of the Sandalwood in the year 1992 / 1993 is concerned, the Government
produced various G.O's and price list and fixed at Rs.2,35,832/- per ton.
As per G.O.Ms.No.126 dated 06.03.1940 the plaintiffs are entitled to
claim compensation of 47.5% of the total sale price. Accordingly, the
Appeal Suit may be disposed of.
10. Heard, Mr.Edwin Prabakar, GA(CS), learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr.S.Sethuraman, learned counsel for the first and second
respondents.
11. The plaintiffs owned property comprised in Survey Nos.44/1,
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.5 of 2013
44/3A and 45 of Solur Village, Yercaud Taluk, Salem District. It consists
of coffee, cardamom, orange clove, nutmeg and other fruit bearing trees
besides some Sandalwood trees. As requested by the plaintiffs, the
defendants permitted them to cut the sandalwoods and the same were
duly acknowledged by the first defendant. On 24.11.1992, by permit
No.386 and invoice No.6/92 3020 kgs of sandalwoods in lot No.497 were
duly received and acknowledged on 25.11.1992. Likewise, by permit
No.387 and invoice No.7/92 3110 kgs of sandalwood in lot No.269 were
duly received and acknowledged on 25.11.1992. Both the permit and
acknowledgment were marked as Ex.A7 and Ex.A8. To prove their
ownership, they marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 which were a sale deed and a
final decree passed in O.S.No.501 of 1975 on the file of Sub Court,
Salem. Therefore, the Court below rightly decided the issue that the
Sandalwoods were cut down from the land owned by the plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs also proved the quantum of Sandalwoods which were duly
received and acknowledged by the first respondent weighing 6130 kgs of
uncleaned Sandalwoods.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.5 of 2013
12. Insofar as the price and entitlement are concerned, admittedly
the defendants received and acknowledged weighing 6130 kgs of
uncleaned Sandalwoods, which were marked as Ex.A7 and Ex.A8.
According to the plaintiffs, they are praying for direction to handover the
Sandalwoods, or the price of the Sandalwoods. Admittedly the
Sandalwoods which were received from the plaintiffs, were sold out in the
year 1994 itself. Therefore, the Court below rightly awarded
compensation to be paid by the defendants.
13. In respect of the value of Sandalwood is concerned, the learned
counsel for the respondents produced the statement showing the details of
Sandalwood sold during 1993 related to Moganadu Estate Vide Lot
No.65/1992 - 1993 and the statement showing average price fetched for
various classes of sandalwood in Salem Sale Depot during the sale held
on 06.07.1994. The sandalwoods which were cut down from the
plaintiffs land were sold out in the year 1994. Therefore, the average
price fixed during the year 1994 for the sandalwood can be taken into
consideration to fix the quantum of price. Accordingly, the total
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.5 of 2013
uncleaned sandalwoods received from the plaintiffs were equal to 6130
kgs on 25.11.1992. As per the statement showing the details of
Sandalwoods sold during 1993, the value of sandalwood per ton is equal
to Rs.2,33,565/-. Accordingly the value comes to 6.13 tons x
Rs.2,33,565/- = Rs.14,31,757/-.
14. As per G.O.Ms.No.126 dated 06.03.1940, the plaintiffs are
entitled to claim compensation of 47.5% of the sale price. Accordingly
Rs.14,31,757 x 47.5/100 = Rs.6,80,084/-. In this Appeal Suit, this Court
granted interim stay on 11.01.2013 on condition that the defendants
should deposit admitted compensation amount to the tune of
Rs.4,14,042/-. The defendants deposited the said amount to the credit of
O.S.No.110 of 2006.
15. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation of
Rs.6,80,084/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
receipt of the sandalwood on 25.11.1992 till the payment of the
compensation. The defendants are directed to deposit the balance amount
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.5 of 2013
after deducting the amount, which was already deposited to the credit of
O.S.No.110 of 2006 on the file of the Trial Court with interest at the rate
of 6% within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. On such deposit, the plaintiffs are permitted to withdraw by
filing appropriate application before the Court below.
16. In the result, this Appeal Suit is partly allowed. No cost.
23.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order /Non-speaking order
rna
To
1.The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2,
Salem.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras - 104.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.5 of 2013
rna
A.S.No.5 of 2013
23.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
