Thiru Pitchai Pillai alias Muthiah Pillai vs The District Forest Officer, Madurai South Division, Madurai

S.T. Ramalingam, J.—This C.M.S.A. is directed against the order dated 8-4-1982 passed by the learned District Judge, Madurai North at

Dindigul in C.M.A. No. 46 of 1982 negativing the claim of the appellant Pitchai Pillai to the land in question viz., S.No. 756/2 of Sirumalai Village,

Madurai District of an extent of 86.64 acres, which was proclaimed as forest land by the District Forest Officer, under the following

circumstances. The lands in Sirumalai village originally formed part of the erstwhile Ammayanaickanur Zamin, which was notified and taken over by

the Government in 1951 under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948. Subsequently ryotwari settlement was introduced and an extent of

91.90 acres was surveyed as S.No. 756. The appellant applied for ryotwari patta for the said land. The assistant settlement officer, by his order

dated 3-4-1952, held that the appellant is entitled to ryotwari patta for an extent of 4.72 acres and the remaining extent of 87.13 acres is treated

as ""assessed waste"". The appellant took the matter in revision to the settlement officer, who remanded the case for fresh enquiry. After fresh

enquiry, the additional assistant settlement officer, considered the various claims filed by the appellant and, by his order dated 23-9-1967 (marked

as Ex.A 5) held that the appellant is entitled to ryotwari patta for some other lands but he is not entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of the land in

question.

While so, the Government of Tamil Nadu in their notification No. II (2)/FRF-1/4060/77 issued under S.4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and

published in the Tamil Nadu government gazette dated 31-8-1977 and in the district gazette on 8-1-1978 have declared their intention to

constitute Sirumalai west forest block as a reserve forest. Under the proclamation issued under S.5 of the forest Act and published in the Madurai

district gazette dated 8-4-1978 and 15-5-1978 claims over the land or any forest produce thereof were called for. In pursuance thereof, the

appellant Pitchai Pillai alias Muthiah claimed 86 64 acres of land comprised in S.No. 756/2 of Sirumalai village viz, the land in question, as his own

land on the ground that he is in enjoyment of the land for the past several years and that he has been issued patta and B-Memos for the same land

and as such, it should not be included in the reserve forest. The district forest officer, Madurai South division, the respondent herein resisted the

claim of the appellant contending that the land in question is a forest and that the appellant has no right to the same. During the enquiry, the

appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and filed two copies of orders of the assistant settlement officer and additional assistant settlement officer,

Madurai. He had also deposed that he is enjoying the land in question for the past several years and that it should not be included in the reserve

forest.

Considering the evidence of the appellant and relying upon the entries in the village records, the forest settlement officer rejected the claim of the

appellant. An appeal was filed by the appellant in C.M.A. No. 97 of 1979 before the district court. Madurai. During the pendency of that appeal,

the appellant filed the zamin patta dated 10-6-1949 by way of additional evidence and it was ordered to be received and marked as Ex.A-1. The

learned district judge, remanded the proceedings to the forest settlement officer.

Before the forest settlement officer, the appellant gave evidence and marked Exs.A1 to A5. On a consideration of the oral and documentary

evidence let in, the forest settlement officer came to the conclusion that the land in question is in the occupation of the appellant and it should not be

included in the notified area and allowed the claim of the appellant. As against that order, the respondent herein preferred C.M.A. No.46 of 1982.

The learned district judge, after elaborately discussing the value of the documents relied on by the appellant herein, reversed the order of the

forest settlement officer and ordered that the land in question cannot be deleted from the notified area. It is against this order of the learned

sessions judge, this Civil Miscellaneous second appeal has been preferred.

The question that arises for consideration in this C.M.S.A. is whether the proclamation of the land in question as forest land is correct or not?

Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant argued that the learned sessions judge has not properly appreciated the value of Ex.A-1 patta issued

by the erstwhile Zamindar in favour of one Ramasami Pillai from whom the appellant''s father has purchased the land in question by means of an

oral sale. I perused Ex. A-1. It has been written by two different persons in two different inks. In the preamble the name of Ramasami Pillai is

written in light green ink and it has been issued for the fasli year 1958. While describing the four boundaries of the land in question, it was left

incomplete. Later, on, some other person who has signed it has followed it up and completed it in a different ink. Further, Ex.A-1 relates to 29.50

acres equivalent to 50 kuzhis. It is the case of the appellant that his father purchased from the person named in Ex.A-1 whereas the release deed

and the lease deed relied upon by the appellant are contrary to the said contention. In the unregistered release deed obtained from his brothers, it is

not stated that the land was purchased by their father from Ramasami Pillai mentioned in Ex.A.1, Ex.A-2 release deed dated 16-3-1959 mentions

that the land in question was given to the appellant by his father. The release deed mentioned that it has been executed with a view to honour the

commitment of the appellant''s father, whereas in Ex.A-3 an unregistered lease deed executed by the appellant in favour of the lessee, the case of

the appellant is that the land in question was given to him in a partition. A combined reading of Exs.A-1, A-2 and A-3, creates a doubt whether the

appellant''s case is true.

Even if Ex.A-1 is taken as true, it relates only to 29.50 acres whereas the land in question covers an extent of 87 cents. In Ex.A.2 he has stated

that it was given to him by his father and then his brothers are releasing their right to honour the wishes of their father and in Ex.A-3 it is stated that

the appellant obtained it in a partition. The appellant has no consistent case or stand. As such, the question of law raised at the time of admission of

this C.M.S.A. viz., whether Ex.A-2 and A-3 have no evidentiary value does not arise and I hold that the proclamation of the land in question as

forest land is correct and answer the point against the appellant.

Apart from this, it is an admitted case of the appellant that his attempt to obtain patta for the land in question was negatived. Once the appellant

has lost his right to obtain patta to the land in question and allowed it to become final, I find the appellant has no other right to agitate as to the

character of the land and obtain the same indirectly. Once the demand for ryotwari patta has been rejected as originally made by the appellant and

the rejection has become final, it is not open to the appellant to question the proclamation of the land in question as a forest land. It is a matter

between the state and other departments to treat the land either as a forest land or some other land as circumstances warrant. In that view of the

matter, I see no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned district judge. In the result, the civil miscellaneous second appeal fails and

is dismissed. I direct each party to bear their own costs.