Madras High Court
M.Rajprakash vs The District Collector on 10 March, 2021
1 W.P.(MD)NO.8596 OF 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)No.8596 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.7961 of 2020
M.Rajprakash ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector, Theni,
Theni District.
2. The District Forest Officer,
Theni Froest Range Division,
Theni.
3. The Tahsildar,
Bodinayakanur,
Theni District.
4. The Executive Engineer,
Agricultural Engineering Department,
Theni. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
the records relating to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.
34545/2018/G7, dated 05.02.2020 issued by the first respondent
and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent
to reconsider the request submitted by the writ petitioner for
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/8
2 W.P.(MD)NO.8596 OF 2020
cutting down 173 Silver Oaks trees and 10 Jack Fruit trees
situated in Survey No.535/2B comprised in Patta No.702,
measuring 1.96 Hectares, situated at Kottakudi Village,
Bodinayakanur Taluk, Theni District which are standing
hindrance agriculture plantation activities and to pass
appropriate orders within the time limit fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.AL.Kannan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Angappan,
Government Advocate.
***
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. The petitioner is the owner of the petition mentioned
lands. He had purchased it a few years ago through a registered
sale deed. There is no dispute that they are his patta lands. On
the said lands, as many as 683 trees such as Silver Oak, Jackfruit
etc. are standing. The petitioner identified 173 Silver Oak trees
and 10 Jackfruit trees for the purpose of cutting. According to
the petitioner, they are more than 25 years old and are hindering
his plantation activities. The petitioner therefore submitted an
application in terms of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of
http://www.judis.nic.in
3 W.P.(MD)NO.8596 OF 2020
Trees) Act, 1955 seeking permission from the competent
authority for permission to cut the said trees. The petitioner's
request was rejected by the impugned order dated 05.02.2020.
Questioning the same, this writ petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in
support of this writ petition. He highlighted the fact that the trees
are standing only on his patta land and not on any poramboke
land. He also pointed out that spot inspection was conducted and
the minutes drawn during the spot inspection are clearly
supporting his stand. The jurisdictional Tahsildar as well as the
authorised ranger have recommended in favour of the petitioner.
The Executive Engineer from the Agricultural Engineering
Department has also noted that by cutting the trees, there won't
be any soil erosion.
4. The stand of the petitioner's counsel is that it is only
the authority from the Agricultural Engineering Department who
can competently speak about soil erosion and related aspects.
However in the impugned order, the petitioner's request has been
http://www.judis.nic.in
4 W.P.(MD)NO.8596 OF 2020
rejected on the ground that since the trees are standing on a
steep slope, there would be soil erosion. According to him, it is
not open to the first respondent to overrule the stand taken by
the expert. He would point out that the forest ranger had also
recommended the case of the petitioner. He also submitted that
whenever such requests were made on the earlier occasions, the
authorities granted permission and the reasons set out in the
impugned order have never been projected earlier occasions.
5.The second respondent has filed a detailed counter
affidavit. The learned Government Advocate reiterated all the
contentions set out therein and wanted this Court to sustain the
impugned order and dismiss this writ petition.
6.I carefully considered all the contentions and went
through the materials on record. In fact, I made spot inspection
also in the presence of the writ petitioner and the officials from
the Forest Department. The land in question is contiguous to a
reserved forest. The nearest village is at a distance of more than
five kilometers from this place. A narrow and rough mountain
path provides the access. I really wonder how the revenue
http://www.judis.nic.in
5 W.P.(MD)NO.8596 OF 2020
authorities could have granted patta for such a land. I saw the
footmarks of 'Indian Gaur' on the land in question.
7.Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of
Trees) Act, 1955, mandates that without permission of the Hill
Area Committee, no person can cut any tree standing in the
notified hill area. However, if a tree has 1.83 metres in girth at a
height of 1.37 metres, grant of permission will be a matter of
course. The only issue that has to be gone into is as to whether
the trees in question are having the girth of 1.83 meters at a
height of 1.37 meters. Except one tree, all the other 182 trees
sought to be felled by the petitioner are having girth of less than
1.83 metres. Therefore, the committee was justified in rejecting
the petitioner's request. This Court cannot issue any mandamus
contrary to law. Unless this Court can render a finding that the
impugned order is not in consonance with the statutory
requirements, this Court will not be justified in interfering with
the impugned order. In fact the girth measurement on each tree
was made in the presence of the writ petitioner. The petitioner
also is not in a position to challenge the measurements made by
the Forest Department. Therefore, I am of the view that no
interference is called for.
http://www.judis.nic.in
6 W.P.(MD)NO.8596 OF 2020
8.I want to make one more observation. Any order
passed by an administrative authority is amenable to judicial
review. However, there are various levels of judicial review
depending on the subject matter. For instance, legislations
which impinge upon individual autonomy deserve deeper and
heightened judicial scrutiny. Strict scrutiny test should be
applied to such legislations. [Anuj Garg and Ors. vs. Hotel
Association of India and Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 1]. In the
privacy judgment, the Hon'ble Judges had to deal with the
question as to whether the court is to apply strict scrutiny
standard or “just or the fair and reasonable standard”. Jurists
talk about “hard look approach or kid-glove approach. In matters
concerning environment, if the executive takes a stand that in the
view of the court is likely to affect ecology, then the court will
take a hard look and probe the matter deeply. If the executive or
the administrator herself takes a decision that is eco-friendly,
unless it suffers from illegality, Courts will be reluctant to
interfere.
9.The learned counsel for the petitioner would insist that
the stand of the authorities elsewhere is that if the trees are
http://www.judis.nic.in
7 W.P.(MD)NO.8596 OF 2020
causing obstruction to coffee plantation, then they can be felled.
He asserted that he is in a position to produce scores of such
orders granting permission for felling trees even if the girth is
less than the prescribed limit. I am not in a position to take
cognizance of the practice that is said to be generally prevalent.
So long as the statutory provision remains what it is, I would not
be justified in directing the authorities to act contrary to the
same. If as claimed by the petitioner there is discrepancy
between the statutory position and the prevalent practice, then it
is the duty of the authorities to ensure that the statutory
provision is implemented and the contrary practice discontinued.
This writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.03.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
skm
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
8 W.P.(MD)NO.8596 OF 2020
To:
1. The District Collector,
Theni,
Theni District.
2. The District Forest Officer,
Theni Froest Range Division,
Theni.
3. The Tahsildar,
Bodinayakanur,
Theni District.
4. The Executive Engineer,
Agricultural Engineering Department,
Theni.
http://www.judis.nic.in
9 W.P.(MD)NO.8596 OF 2020
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
skm
W.P.(MD)No.8596 of 2020
10.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
