AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Selvam, J.—The concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in Original Suit No. 106 of 2006 by the District Munsif - cum - Judicial
Magistrate Court, Bodinaickanur and in Appeal Suit No. 154 of 2008 by the Sub Court, Theni are being challenged in the present Second
Appeal. The appellants herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No. 106 of 2006 for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction,
wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants.
The material averments averred in the plaint are that the suit properties are originally formed part of Bodinaickanur Zamin, in which the
predecessors in title of the plaintiffs have had occupancy right. The entire Zamin has been taken over by the Government under Estate Abolition
Act 26 of 1948. But the suit properties have been erroneously classified as Government poramboke land. The suit properties are nothing but Ryoti
lands. The plaintiffs have preferred their claim before the Forest Settlement Officer. The claim of the plaintiffs has been dismissed and subsequently
an Appeal has been preferred on the file of the Additional District Court, Madurai and the same has been allowed and ultimately the matter has
been remitted to the file of the Forest Settlement Officer. The plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for more than 60
years. The plaintiffs are having occupancy right over the suit properties. Under the said circumstances the present suit has been instituted so as to
declare that the suit properties are Ryoti lands and also to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the plaintiffs by means of perpetual injunction.
In the written statement filed on the side of the defendants it is averred that the present suit is not legally maintainable in view of Sections 4 and 5
of the Forest Act. The entire Bodinaickanur Zamin has been taken over by the Government under Estate Abolition Act 26 of 1948. After taking
over, the entire estate has come under the uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the Government. It is false to say that the suit properties are
Ryoti lands. The suit properties are nothing but reserved forest. There is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.
On the basis of the rival pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after perpending both the oral and
documentary evidence has dismissed the suit. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiffs as appellants have preferred
Appeal Suit No. 154 of 2008 on the file of the first appellate Court.
The first appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has dismissed the Appeal, whereby
and whereunder confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Against the concurrent Judgments and decrees passed by the
Courts below, the present Second Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the plaintiffs as appellants.
As agreed by the learned counsel appearing on either side, the present Second Appeal is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission.
On the side of the appellants/plaintiffs, the following substantial questions of law have been raised for consideration:
(i) Whether the Courts below are right in ignoring the plea of private property contended by the appellants/plaintiffs supported by sale deeds,
patta, kist receipts, produce and auction sale receipt?
(ii) Have not the Courts below committed grave error in dismissing the suit by merely placing reliance on the contentions put forth by the
respondent and notification?
(iii) Whether the suit property is amenable to the provisions of Estate Abolition Act and notification to include the suit property as forest land on a
general classification, especially when the suit property was a private property of the predecessors of appellants even before the advent of Estate
Abolition Act?
Before contemplating the rival submissions made on either side, the Court has to perorate the following admitted facts. It is an admitted fact that
the suit properties are originally formed part of Bodinaikanur Zamin and the entire Zamin has been taken over by the Government under Estate
Abolition Act 26 of 1948 and after taking over the entire Zamin, the suit properties have been classified as Government poramboke land and
subsequently converted into reserved forest. It is also equally an admitted fact that the plaintiffs have claimed that the suit properties are Ryoti lands
and they preferred their claim before the Forest Settlement Officer, Bodinaickanur and their claim has been rejected and subsequently Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred on the file of the Additional District Court, Madurai and the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been
allowed and ultimately the matter has been remitted to the file of the Forest Settlement Officer and for the second time, the claim of the plaintiffs
has been rejected. Without preferring any Appeal, the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought for in the plaint.
As per Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, the State Government is having unfettered powers to publish necessary notification for
the purpose of converting a land as a reserved forest.
Section 4(c) of the said Act deals with appointment of Forest Settlement Officer so as to enquire and determine the nature and extent of any
rights claimed or alleged to exist in favour of, any person in or over any land comprised within such limits or to any forest produce of such land,
and to deal with the same as provided.
Section 10 of the said Act deals with ""claims to rights of occupancy and ownership."" Section 10 (2) deals with ''Appeal provision against
rejected claims.''
From the cumulative reading of the said sections, the following legal aspects have become emerged:
(a) The State Government is having enormous powers so as to treat a land as reserved forest by way of publishing necessary notification.
(b) If any land is declared as reserved forest, Forest Settlement Officer is a competent Authority to hear any claim made by any person.
(c) If any claim is rejected by Forest Settlement Officer, an Appeal can be preferred before the concerned District Court.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs has repeatedly contended that as per Exs.A5 to A8, the plaintiffs have claimed that
they are the owners of the suit properties and the Forest Settlement Officer has erroneously rejected the claim of the plaintiffs and since the
plaintiffs are the owners of the suit properties and also having occupancy right, the present suit is legally maintainable for the reliefs sought for
therein and the Courts below have concurrently rejected the claim of the plaintiffs purely on the basis of notification issued by the Government of
Tamilnadu and therefore, the concurrent Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside.
It is an admitted fact that on the side of the plaintiffs Exs.A5 to A8, sale deeds have been filed so as to encrust their alleged ownership. Ex.A4
is the order dated 22.11.1982 passed by the Forest Settlement Officer. From Ex.A4 the Court can easily learn that the claim of the plaintiffs has
been rejected by the Forest Settlement Officer and subsequently a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred on the file of the Additional
District Court, Madurai and the same has been allowed and ultimately remitted the matter to the Forest Settlement Officer and again the Forest
Settlement Officer has rejected the claim of the plaintiffs by virtue of passing necessary order which has been marked as Ex.A4.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in 2004 -1 - L.W.647
(Arulmigu Kallalagar Thirukoil, Alagar Koil etc. V. The Government of Tamilnadu etc. & others), wherein the Division Bench of this Court has
held that ""the Government was a trustee in possession on behalf of the Temple. The notification u/s 25 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act is non est and
void. Therefore, Civil Suit is maintainable so as to declare right and title of the plaintiff.
Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 reads as follows:
Forest reserved previous to passing of this Act:-The Government may, by notification in the [Official Gazette] declare any forest which has been
reserved by order of the Government previous to the day on which this Act comes into force to be a reserved forest under this act.
Even from a cursory look of the said provision, it is made clear that if any land has been declared as a forest before passing of the Tamil Nadu
Forest Act, 1882, and after passing of the same, the said land can be treated as reserved forest.
It is seen from the decision referred to supra that the plaintiff therein is the owner of the suit lands and the same have been given to the Forest
Department and the Forest Department has had in possession of the same as a trustee of the plaintiff and subsequently the State Government has
issued a notification u/s 25 of the said Act. Under the said circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court has held that since the defendant therein
has had enjoyed the suit properties as a trustee of the plaintiff, the notification itself is non est in law and also void and therefore, the plaintiff therein
is entitled to get the reliefs sought for therein. But here, the factual aspects are entirely different. In the instant case, the entire Bodinaickanur Zamin
has been taken over by the Government under Act 26 of 1948 and after taking over, the suit properties have been classified as poramboke lands
and by issuance of notification, the suit properties have been treated as reserved forest and subsequently the plaintiffs have preferred a claim before
the Forest Settlement Officer and the same has been rejected and against the rejection order, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred on
the file of the Additional District Court, Madurai and the same has been allowed and ultimately the matter has been remitted to the file of the Forest
Settlement Officer and again the Forest Settlement Officer has rejected the claim of the plaintiffs and against which, no Appeal has been preferred
and directly the plaintiffs have approached Civil Court by way of filing the present suit.
The learned Additional Government Pleader has contended that against the rejection order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer, the
plaintiffs ought to have filed an Appeal before the concerned Appellate Forum and without resorting the available provision in Tamil Nadu Forest
Act, 1882, the present suit is not legally maintainable before Civil Forum and the Courts below have rightly non-suited the plaintiffs and therefore,
the concurrent Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below do not warrant interference.
In support of the contention raised on the side of the respondents, the decision reported in 17 MLJ 557 (Subramanian Asari V. The Secretary
of State for India in Council rep. by the Collector of Tinnevelly) is relied upon, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that ""no civil suit
can be brought to contest a right to land, after it is once adjudicated upon by a Forest Settlement Officer on a claim preferred by the plaintiff
against the act of the Government constituting the land under the Madras Forest Act a reserved forest.
A mere reading of the decision referred to supra would go to show that against rejection order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer,
proper remedy is to file only an Appeal before the concerned Appellate Forum and no Civil Suit is maintainable.
The learned Additional Government Pleader has also drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in A. Jegannathan, N. Nabib
Khan, rep., by his Power Agent A. Ameer Basha and N. Chockalingam Rep., by his Power Agent S. Palaniammal Vs. Local Library Authority of
Tiruchy, wherein, this Court has held that ""if a statute create an effective machinery for deciding the issue, then the Civil Court''s jurisdiction is
barred by necessary implication.
In the instant case, it has already been pointed out that against the rejection order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer, as per section
10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 an Appeal shall lie before the concerned District Court. Admittedly Ex.A4 is the rejection order passed
by the Forest Settlement Officer and against which the plaintiffs ought to have preferred an Appeal before the concerned District Court. Without
preferring any Appeal, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction. Since the plaintiffs are having
remedy by way of preferring an Appeal u/s 10(2) of the said Act, in view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court referred to
supra, the present suit is not legally maintainable and further even at the risk of repetition the Court would like to say that the plaintiffs without
resorting the provision which is available u/s 10(2) of the said Act, they adopted return method by way of filing the present suit. Therefore, it is
quite clear that the present suit is not legally maintainable.
The Courts below after considering the available evidence on record and also after considering the correct legal positions have rightly non-
suited the plaintiffs. In view of the foregoing elucidation of both the factual and legal aspects, this Court has not found any error nor infirmities in the
concurrent Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below and all the substantial questions of law raised on the side of the appellants
/plaintiffs are not at all relevant for the purpose of deciding the real issue that involved in the present case and therefore, the present Second Appeal
deserves to be dismissed. In fine, this Second Appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without cost and the concurrent Judgments
and decrees passed by the Courts below are confirmed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.