Mooka Gowder vs State of Tamilnadu and Others

P. Jyothimani, J.—The writ Petitioner is said to be in possession of an extent of 307.620 hectares of janmam lands in S.F. No. 303/1 at

Devala village, Gudalur. It appears that he has filed a suit for injunction against the Forest Department in OS. No. 114 of 1984 before the District

Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Gudalur and there has been a decree for injunction passed on 31.10.1986 in his favour in respect of the

said lands. In the earlier writ petition filed by him through his sons and daughter in WP. No. 38699 of 2003 seeking a direction, this Court, by an

order dated 31.12.2003, has only directed to consider the individual representations of the Petitioners therein dated 10.10.2003 for the purpose of

issuance of patta. It is pursuant to that the third Respondent passed the impugned order dated 12.4.2004, which clearly shows that neither in the

Civil Court nor in the High Court, there has been a direction to measure the property and issue patta to him. While the suit filed by him was in

respect of injunction, the earlier writ petition was only to consider the representations. After taking note of the fact that as per the Government

records, the lands concerned have been categorized as forest lands, under the impugned order, the third Respondent rejected the claim of the

Petitioner for measuring the lands and issuing patta. It is against such order, the present writ petition has been filed.

The contention of Mr. V. Manohar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that under The Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into

Ryotwari) Act, 1969 (Tamil nadu Act 24 of 1969), as per Section 17, the lessees or persons in occupation carrying on cultivation are entitled to

certain rights. According to him, the relationship and his right to continue to be in possession have not been determined by the Government and

therefore, he is entitled to continue to be in possession.

On the other hand, Mr. Kirubanandam, learned Special Government Pleader for the Forest Department would submit that as per the provisions

of Section 17(1)(a) of the said Act, the right to continue to be in possession of the Petitioner has already been determined by the Government and

he has no right to remain in possession. Since, as per the Government records, the lands have been categorized as forest lands, the Petitioner is not

entitled to have any relief.

On a reference to the provisions of the Act, which have been relied upon, it is relevant to extract Section 17(1)(c), which is as follows:

17(1)(a): Where at any time before the appointed day the janmi has created by way of lease, rights in any lands, for purposes of cultivation of

plantation crops, the Government may, if in their opinion, it is in the public interest to do so, by notice given to the person concerned terminate the

right with effect from such date as may be specified in the notice, not being earlier than three months from the date thereof.

(b) The person whose right has been so terminated shall be entitled to compensation from the Government which shall be determined by the Board

of Revenue in such manner as may be prescribed, having regard to the value of the right and the period for which the right was created.

(c) Where any such right is not determined under this Sub. Section, the transaction whereby such right was created shall be deemed to be valid

and all rights and obligations arising thereunder, on or after the appointed day, shall be enforceable by or against the Government:

Provided that the transaction was not void or illegal under any law in force at the time.

(2) The Government may, if in their opinion it is in the public interest to do so, impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any right continued,

under this section.

As per the said section, it is open to the Government, in pubic interest, after giving notice, terminate the right of any person, who is in occupation

of janmam lands. It is true that u/s 17(1)(c) of the said Act, if the Government has not taken such steps in determining the relationships, the right of

occupation is deemed to be a valid one. The question as to whether such a right is available to the Petitioner or not cannot be decided in this writ

petition. In such view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the Petitioner is not entitled to have any relief claimed in the writ petition.

It is brought to the notice of this Court the issue relating to the forest lands in Gudalur as janmam lands covered under the said Act is pending

before the Hon''ble Apex Court and in fact, there has been an order by the Supreme Court in WP(Civil) No. 202 of 1995 dated 12.12.1996

wherein it has been held as follows:

The movement of trees or timber (sawn or otherwise) from the State shall, for the present, stand suspended, except for the use of DGS & D,

Railways and Defence. Any such movement for such use will

(a) be effected after due certification, consignment-wise made by the Managing Director of the State Corporation which will include certification

that the timber has come from State Forest Corporation sources; and

(b) be undertaken by either the Corporation itself, the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Department or the receiving agency.

By a subsequent order passed in August 1999, in I.A. No. 418, the Supreme Court, while issuing notice to the Government has specifically

passed orders as follows:

... In the meantime, no pattas with regard to any forest land shall be granted nor shall any encroachment be regularised.

In view of the said orders, which is stated to be binding even as on date, the Petitioner is certainly not entitled to have any relief claimed in this

writ petition. Except giving liberty to the Petitioner to make any representation to the concerned Authorities as per the provisions of the said Act as

and when he is found eligible after the disposal of the case pending before the Hon''ble Apex Court, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.