High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 14.06.2007CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARANANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJAW.A.No.788 of 2000The Forest Range OfficerTambaram, Chennai-600 045... Appellant Vs.1.V.K.RaghupathyS/o.V.KannappanPresident, Rajiv Gandhi NagarStone Quarry Labourers ResidentsWelfare Association (Regd.No.284/91)8, Bharathiyar Street ExtensionThirumalai Road, Rajiv Gandhi NagarWest Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045.2.Jayabalan3.M.Kandasamy4.P.Mani5.P.Nainar6.M.Selvaraj7.R.Ramakrishnan8.C.Selvam9.Govindasamy10.Mrs.Sankari11.S.Parvin12.N.Masanam13.Govindan14.Kannammal15.M.Pauldurai16.P.Chellappa17.Madhu18.Kanga Subramani19.D.Dhanalakshmi20.Dharman21.S.Sadhuraj22.Karuppusamy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23.Murugesan24.Mrs.Periya Thai25.Mariappan26.Azhagappan27.C.Vijaya28.Shanmugam29.Pachiyammal30.Pappa31.A.Rasappan32.Narayanan33.Aarayee34.Govindaraj35.Chandran36.Kamala37.Krishna38.Thavamani39.Yesadiyal40.Madathi41.Viji42.Karnan43.Jothi44.R.Rajendiran45.P.Chandran46.Ramalingam47.Vijayalakshmi48.Vellaiammal49.T.M.Rathinam50.Venkataraman51.Arumugam52.K.Duraisamy53.M.Govindarajan54.M.Kuppusamy55.A.Munusamy56.A.Annamalai57.Lakshmi58.Muthulakshmi59.Selvi60.Mathammal61.M.Kesavan62.Pappa63.N.Elumalai64.Vasantha65.C.Palani66.Nanjappan67.Kasiammal68.M.Krishnasamy69.M.Govindaraj70.Sundarammal71.Pappa72.Kasi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

73.Santha74.P.Govindaraj75.Chinnaponnu76.Alamelu77.Valli78.Palaniammal79.M.Palani80.Durai81.Subramani82.Kuppan83.Madhavan84.Lakshmi85.S.Palanichamy86.Gopal87.Kaliappan88.Pappathi89.Vella Udayar90.Chellammal91.Ranganathan92.K.Jayapal93.S.Krishnamurthy94.B.Anbalagan.. RespondentsPRAYER: Against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.12.1999made in W.P.No.10757 of 1992. This petition presented to this underArticle 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarimandamus to call for the entire records relating to the proceedings of theRespondent in his proceedings in No.C.No.268,S.No.55 dated 7.3.1992 issuedto the numbers of the petitioners Association and quash the said impugnedproceedings of the respondent dated 7.3.1992 and consequently forbear therespondents from in any way interfering with the occupation of thepetitioners in Tambaram Reserve Forest Area to an extent of 5 acres.For Appellant:Mr.S.RajasekaranAddl. Government PleaderFor Respondents:Mr.M.VenkatachalapathySenior Counsel for Mr.M.Sriram https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ J U D G M E N T(Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judgedated 10.12.1999 made in W.P.No.10757 of 1992 filed by the respondentsherein.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, we deal with the essential factsrelevant for the disposal of this appeal. For the sake of convenience, wewill refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the writ petition.2.1. Alleging that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants of theland in the Tambaram Reserved Forest, Tambaram Village and Taluk, therespondent issued an eviction notice directing thepetitioners/unauthorised occupants to show cause within five days ofreceipt of the said notice, as to why they should not be evicted from thesaid land and the property thereon should not be forfeited to theGovernment under Section 68-A of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 (forbrevity, "the Act"). Aggrieved by the said notice issued by therespondent, the petitioners preferred W.P.No.10757 of 1992. 2.2.1. According to the petitioners, notice giving a minimum of tendays should have been given instead of impugned notice giving five daystime to submit their objections and therefore, the summary eviction noticeis contrary to law.2.2.2. It is the further case of the petitioners that they areentitled to shelter and by the impugned proceedings the respondent istrying to violate the Constitutional safeguards.2.3.1. The respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit in the writpetition to the effect that the petitioners/ unauthorised occupants do nothave any permanent shelter in the place, but still they occupy theimpugned lands under the pretext of labourers employed by the quarrycontractors. It is also stated that many of the petitioners have theirown permanent residents outside the reserved forest.2.3.2. The respondent further stated that the petitioners are not, inany way, aggrieved by the notice issued of summary eviction issued underthe Section 68-A of the Act.2.4. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 10.12.1999 inW.P.No.10757 of 1992, dismissed the writ petition, giving directions asunder to the District Collector, Chengalpet at Kanchipuram, who is not aparty to the writ petition: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "(i) The petitioners setting out all their grievances would submita memorandum of application before the District Collector,Chengalpet at Kanchipuram within two months from the date ofreceipt of the copy of this order.(ii) The District Collector, Kanchipuram, in turn will appoint aresponsible Gazetted Officer as the Enquiry Officer to go into thequestion of occupation of the lands by the petitioners in theTambaram Reserve Forest Area and the Enquiry Officer will submitthe report to the District Collector, Kanchipuram as early aspossible.(iii) Based on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, theDistrict Collector, Kanchipuram shall initiate proper steps eitherto regularise the present occupation of the petitioners onreclassification of the land if it is feasible, addressing to theGovernment or in the event that they have to be evicted, providingsuitable alternate sites for the genuine occupiers of the areainitiating such measures and recommending to the State Governmentas it is required in the circumstances of the case.(iv) Since the subject matter being a long pending one, theDistrict Collector, Kanchipuram, is further directed to completethe entire enquiry with due opportunity for the petitioners to beheard and to pass orders within nine months from the date ofreceipt of such representations by the petitioners.(v) Till the above directions issued to the District Collector,Kanchipuram are complied with and a decision is arrived at on thesubject ultimately resolving the issue, the respondent, forestofficial is hereby restrained from evicting the petitioners fromtheir genuine occupation of the Tambaram Reserve Forest Area."3. Heard both sides. 4. It is not in dispute that the impugned land comes within thejurisdiction of the Tambaram Reserved Forest and the respondent/ForestRange Officer has got jurisdiction to initiate summary evictionproceedings under Section 68-A of the Act, which reads as follows:"Section:68-A. Liability of person unauthorisedly occupying anyland in reserved forest etc: to summary eviction:- Any personunauthorisedly occupying any land in reserved forest or any land atthe disposal of Government may be summarily evicted by an officerof Forest Department not below the rank of Forest Ranger or anOfficer of the Revenue department not below the rank of theTahsildar having jurisdiction over area in which such land issituated, in such manner, as may be prescribed and any crop orother product raised on such land, shall be liable to forfeitureany building or other construction erected or anything depositedthereon shall also be liable to forfeiture. Forfeiture under thissection, shall be adjudged by the officer referred to above and anyproperty so forfeited, shall be disposed of in such manner as maybe prescribed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Provided that no eviction or adjudication under this sectionadversely affecting a person shall be made or adjudged, unless-(a) such person has been given a notice in such manner may beprescribe; and(b) the representation, if any received in pursuance of such noticehas been duly considered by such officer concerned."5. Once there is no dispute that the impugned land falls within thejurisdiction of the Tambaram Reserve Forest and when the statutespecifically empowers the Forest Range Officer to initiate summaryeviction proceedings, we are of the considered opinion that the learnedSingle Judge erred in permitting the petitioners to submit theirobjections to the District Collector, Chengalpet at Kanchipuram, who isnot even a party to the writ petition and has no jurisdiction to decide onthe issue.6. The main object of the Act is to conserve the forests of countryand also to regulate the extraction of forest produce on scientific lines.The Act is designed to enable the Government to carry out effectually theconservancy of the forests, and to systematise and regulate the action ofthe Forest Department. 7. In the words of the Apex Court, ‘Sustainable development’ isessentially a policy and strategy for continued economic and socialdevelopment without detriment to the environment and natural resources onthe quality of which continued activity and further development depend.Therefore, while thinking of the developmental measures the needs of thepresent and the ability of the future to meet its own needs andrequirements have to be kept in view. While thinking of the present, thefuture should not be forgotten. We owe a duty to future generations andfor a bright today, a bleak tomorrow cannot be countenanced. We must learnfrom our experiences of the past to make both the present and the futurebrighter. We learn from our experiences, mistakes from the past, so thatthey can be rectified for a better present and the future. It cannot belost sight of that while today is yesterday’s tomorrow, it is tomorrow’syesterday. The greenery of India should not be allowed to be perished, tobe replaced by deserts. Ethiopia which at a point of time was consideredto be one of the greenest countries, is virtually a vast desert today,vide T.N.GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, (2002) 10S.C.C.606.8. It is settled law that no person has right to encroach, byerecting any structure or otherwise, in a place reserved or earmarked forpublic purpose and the authorities constituted under the Act are entitledto initiate action under the provisions of the Act to evict theunauthorised occupants. Longer the delay, the greater would be thedanger of permitting the encroachers claiming semblance of right toobstruct removal of encroachment. As the legislature considers it in its https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ wisdom that under the general law the eviction process is dilatory andprovides for other speedier procedure for evicting unauthorised occupantsor sub tenants, it cannot be said that such summary eviction procedure isviolative of any of the fundamental rights much less Article 21 of theConstitution of India. For all these reasons, we are unable to sustain the directions givenby the learned Single Judge and we do not see any illegality or lack ofjurisdiction in the impugned summary eviction notice issued by respondent.The writ appeal is allowed. The petitioners are permitted to submit theirobjections within fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of thisorder and on receipt of the same the respondent shall pass appropriateorders on merits. No costs.sasiSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo:The Forest Range OfficerTambaram, Chennai-600 045.+1 cc to M/s.M.Sriram, Advocate Sr.No.35064.+1 cc to Special Government Pleader (Forests) Sr.No.34771.AKR(CO)dcp/3.7.07W.A.No.788 of 2000