Sangili Thevar (deceased) and 7 others vs The District Forest Settlement Officer

M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.—This revision is directed against the order of the district judge of Madurai North at Dindigul rejecting a civil

miscellaneous appeal against the order of the forest settlement officer, Bodinaickanur in a claim made by the present petitioners-claimants. The

claim was made on the basis of ownership in respect of 2.27 acres of land which constitutes a part of 45576.92 acres of land which were notified

under S. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 as a part of the Bodi north hills forest block. The claim made by the original claimant one Sangili

Thevar was that the land was a ryoti land from inception, that it has been under cultivation for the last forty years and that it was not within the limits

of the reserve forest and hence should be deleted. During the pendency of the proceedings, the original claimant died and the present revision

petitioners are the heirs of the original claimant.

Both the authorities have held that the proceedings which were taken by the original claimant for getting a ryotwari patta in respect of the land in

question have been unsuccessful since such a claim made by the original claimant was rejected by the additional collector, Madurai on 23-4-1978.

This order was confirmed by the board of revenue while dismissing a revision petition on 26th September, 1978 and a further revision petition to

the State government also came to be dismissed. It is only after these proceedings that possession was taken by the forest department.

When a notification under S. 4 of the Forest Act was issued, a similar claim on the basis of ryoti rights was made as contemplated by S. 6(d) of

the Tamilnadu Forest Act, 1882. Ten documents were filed in support of the claim that the original claimant was in cultivating possession of the

land. The authorities have held that the request for ryotwari patta for the land outside the scope of Act 26 of 1948 having been finally rejected, the

land was consequently notified as forest land. They therefore, took the view that it was not open to the petitioners-claimants to claim that the said l

and was a ryoti land from inception and that it was included or ought to have been in the holding of a ryot.

While challenging the order, the contention raised is that notwithstanding the earlier rejection of the claim for a ryotwari patta, it is even now

open to the claimants-petitioners to urge that the land belongs to them and that since they are the owners, the land could not be classified as forest

land. There is no substance in this contention. It is an admitted position that the demand for ryotwari patta has been rejected as originally made by

the original claimant. In so far as Act 26 of 1948 is concerned, the second proviso of S. 19 clearly provides that a person who has been admitted

into possession of any ryoti land on or after the 1st July, 1945 shall be entitled to no rights in respect of such lands except where the government

otherwise direct''. As a consequence of Act 26 of 1948, the lands in the estate on which Act 26 1948, operated, vested in the State. The ryotwari

patta claim having been earlier rejected, the owner of the property in question must be deemed to be the State. Consequently, it is obvious that the

present claimants can have no rights in respect of the land in question, much less on the footing that they are the owners of the property. Their claim

to have these lands deleted from the records with regard to the forest land was, in my view, clearly misconceived Both the authorities were,

therefore right in rejecting the claim of the claimants. The revisions petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.