Salem Mavatta Ezhpulli Malaivazh Makkal Nala Sangam, Regd.No.30/99,Puzhuthikuttai Post, Salem District v. The State of Tamil Nadu

of the members of the Petitioner Sangam, totally 217 persons, whosenames are given in the annexure to the writ petition, to grant pattato them for an extent of 4 acres each of the said lands in S.NO.1/1of malayalapatti Village, Attur Taluk, Salem District. For appellant : Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan For respondents : Mr.D.Sreenivasan, Addl.G.P. for RR-1 to 4 Mr.S.N.Kirubanandam, Spl.G.P. for R-5JUDGMENTS.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,JThe members of the appellant-Salem Mavatta Ezhpulli MalaivazhMakkal Nala Sangam (writ petitioner) (for short, 'Association') areall hill tribes, cultivating the waste dry Government poramboke land(s) from time immemorial and are in possession and enjoyment ofS.No.1/1 Malayalapatti Village, Attur Taluk, Salem District. Theysought for a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the respondents fromissuing declaration under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act,1882 for the land(s) in S.No.1/1 of the aforesaid MalayalapattiVillage, without considering the claim of the members of theappellant-Association, totally 217 persons, whose names were given inthe annexure to the Writ Petition in question and to grant patta tothem for an extent of four acres of each of the said land(s) in thesaid S.No.1/1. 2. The learned single Judge, taking into consideration the factsof the case, maintenance of ecological balance and environmentalprotection, referring to some of the decisions of the Supreme Court,and having refused to grant the relief, the present Writ Appeal hasbeen preferred by the appellant-Association.3. The only question to be determined in the present case is asto whether the members of the appellant-Association, who areScheduled Tribes and those who are other traditional forest dwellers,who otherwise fulfill the requisite conditions, have the forestrights and right of occupation in the forest lands in question.4. It appears that the land(s) in question i.e. in S.No.1/1 ofMalayalapatti Village was proposed for declaration as a "reserveforest" under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, published onthe Gazette, vide G.O.Ms.No.3133, dated 28.12.1972 issued fromAgricultural Department, followed by Notification under Section 6published in the District Gazette on 24.11.1978, calling for claimson right, which was existing in the said land(s). According to therespondents, neither the Sangam (Association), nor its members did https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ present any claim during 1978 before the Forest Settlement Officerunder Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, which indicates thatthey were not cultivating during the year 1978. Their representationto the Government for allotment of the land(s) was filed only during1999, claiming that they were cultivating land(s) from 1991 onwards.5. The Tahsildar, Attur, by letter dated 22.6.1992, forwardedthe claim of the members of the appellant-Association to the DistrictRevenue Officer, Salem, with a report/Survey Notes and otherenclosures. It was informed that the land(s) in S.No.1/1, an extentof 1205.27.0 hectares is made up of flat surface and heightend like asmall hillock. Huge thick trees are found in the small hillock andsome bushes are found in the foot of this small hillock. 538 people,whose names are found in the Adangal, have removed these bushes andhave cultivated punja crops and in some places, have removed thebushes and have levelled the land(s). On enquiry, it was learnt thatsince the boundaries of the forest have not been demarcated, thoselands could not be developed any further. It was further informedthat Malayalapatti Village is surrounded by hillocks on three sides.For a very long period of time, it is the Adivasis (malayalis, i.e.the Scheduled Tribes), who are in inhabitation. All time passed,other backward people have also settled there. The list showing theland(s) which were allotted for public purpose for the MalayalapattiVillage people was also enclosed. It was further informed that theland(s) in dispute are situated 2 Kms. from Malayalapatti Village andcannot be used for public purpose. There are no Mosques, Temples,burial ground, ancient sculptures in the above said Survey Number.There are no mineral deposits in the said S.No. and there is nopossibility of any river to flow and lakes or ponds to form for anysmall water irrigation. The land(s) are in the nature of red sand andare fertile. The water source is available approximately 30% to 50%.In the midst of the same S.No.1/1, cultivation in S.No.315 consistingof an extent of 23.00 acres were classified as patta land(s) and areenjoyed by four persons by an earlier settlement of lands. In theaforesaid S.No., a Well has been dug and rice crops are beingcultivated. There was no objection in the village for converting andallotting the land(s) to the poor, such as landless power andScheduled Tribes.6. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, in his turn, by letterdated 10.7.1992, informed the District Revenue Officer, Salem, theaforesaid facts. It was also intimated that pursuant to G.O.No.28,dated 7.12.1997, issued from Forest Department, with regard to theabovesaid land(s), action to be taken according to the ForestBoundary Assessment Act and the recommendation was made to sub-divide1205.27.0 hectares in S.No.1/1, 131-Malayalapatti Village and tohandover the same to the landless poor people. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. On 8.7.1992, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, vide hisnote, mentioned that prior to UDR, the land(s) were classified asGovernment poramboke. The land value was Rs.1,560/- as wasrecommended by the Tahsildar and the land(s) had not been of any usefor all these days and only bushes which are of no use is grownthere. As the forest boundaries have not been demarcated, it wasrecommended to transfer the land(s) in favour of the poor. Similarreport was submitted by the District Revenue Officer in 1992, but thematter remained pending.8. It appears that inspite of favourable reports, no actionhaving been taken by the State, the appellant-Association movedbefore this Court in W.P.No.6815 of 2000 for issuance of a Writ ofMandamus, to consider the claim of its members for grant of patta.This Court, by order dated 6.6.2000, directed the District Collectorand the District Revenue Officer to initiate proper enquiry andcommunicate the decision to the appellant-Association within threemonths. A detailed enquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar and byproceedings dated 14.3.2001, a favourable report was submitted infavour of the members of the appellant-Association and recommendedfor grant of patta in their favour.9. The Forest Settlement Officer, Attur, by order dated11.9.2002, having noticed the fact that the Notification underSection 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 was published long ago,followed by the Gazette publication on 19.5.1976 and the DistrictGazette publication on 21.9.1981 and that the Notification underSection 6 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act was also published in theDistrict Gazette on 21.4.1977, 21.11.1977, 21.2.1984 and again on21.3.1990, submitted his report under Section 8 of the Tamil NaduForest Act. 10. The District Collector, Salem, by proceedings, dated31.3.2003, forwarded his remarks to the Secretary to Government,Environment and Forest Department, Secretariat, Chennai, to theeffect that since the Government has already issued the Notificationsunder Sections 4 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, proposing thedeclaration, and declaring the area of 1205.27.0 hectares includingthe impugned land(s), namely in S.No.1/1, Malayalapatti Village,Attur Taluk, Salem District, as 'reserve forest', it is for theGovernment to call for the objections from the encroachers and totake appropriate decision.11. Similarly, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,Chennai, in his proceedings, dated 1.3.2004, addressed to theSecretary to Government, Environment and Forests Department,Secretariat, Chennai, while referring to G.O.Ms.No.313, dated28.12.1972, issued from Agricultural Department, proposing to declare https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the land(s) in question as a 'reserve forest', expressed his opinionthat there is no provision under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 tocall for a fresh application in the matter and since the Notificationhas already been issued under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act,1882, it is to culminate into the Notification under Section 16 ofthe Tamil Nadu Forest Act and hence, the question of receiving freshapplication now from the encroachers does not arise.12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submittedthat when once the objections were received under Section 6(d) of theTamil Nadu Forest Act and enquiry made under Section 8, and on thatbasis, an order was passed under Section 10, the authority has nojurisdiction to entertain further objections under Section 6(d), norcan make any further enquiry under Section 8, nor can pass a secondorder under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882.13. Per contra, according to the learned counsel appearing forthe appellant-Association, the members of its Association beingTribal, and they and their ancestors being in possession andenjoyment of the land(s) in question from time immemorial, the Stateis bound to recognise their right by issuing patta in their favour.14. The impugned order was delivered by the learned single Judgeon 1.4.2005, against which the present Writ Appeal is preferred andis pending. During the pendency of this Writ Appeal, a Central Actwas promulgated, namely "The Scheduled Tribes and Other TraditionalForest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006". Learnedcounsel for the appellant-Association, while relying on the relevantprovisions of the said Act, 2006, and the Rules framed thereunder,also referred to Sections 16 and 17 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act,1882.15. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the partiesand noticed the rival contentions.16. The Madras Forest Act 5 of 1882, now known as Tamil NaduForest Act, 1882, was promulgated with the object to provide for theconstitution of more important forests as "State Reserves" and togive powers for the conservancy of forest lands not included in the"Reserve Forests". While Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, empowers theGovernment to issue Notification of proposal to constitute any land aReserved Forest, under Clause (c) of Section 4, the State Governmentis empowered to appoint an officer (Forest Settlement Officer) toenquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of anyrights claimed by, or alleged to exist in favour of, any person orover any land comprised within such limits or to any forest produceof such land, and to deal with the same as provided under Chapter-IIof the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ When a Notification is issued under Section 4 of the Tamil NaduForest Act, 1882, the Forest Settlement Officer is empowered to issueproclamation under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882,specifying the situation and limits of the land proposed to beincluded in the reserved forests.Under Clause (d) of Section 6, the Forest Settlement Officer issupposed to fix a period not less than three months from the date ofpublication of such proclamation, requiring every person claiming anyright referred to in Section 4 either to present to such Officer,within such period, a written notice specifying, or to appear beforehim within such period and state the nature of such right and ineither case, to produce all documents in support thereof. After serving of notice to the same effect of every known orreputed owner or occupier of any land in or adjoining the landproposed to be constituted a reserved forest, the Forest SettlementOfficer is to make enquiry under Section 8 into all claims made underSection 6 recording the evidence in the manner prescribed by the Codeof Civil Procedure Code in appealable cases. At the same time, theForest Settlement Officer is to consider and record any objectionwhich the Forest Officer (if any) appointed under Section 4 may maketo any such claim.After such enquiry, the Forest Settlement Officer shall pass anorder under Section 10 specifying the particulars of such claim andadmit or reject the same, wholly or in part with regard to (a) rightof way; (b) a right to a water course, or to use of water; (c) aright of pasture; or (d) a right to forest produce. With regard to the admitted claim, the Forest Officer may cometo the agreement with the claimant for the surrender of the right orexclude the land from the limits of the closed forests or may proceedto acquire such land in the manner provided by the Land AcquisitionAct, 1870 (Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894). However, with regard tothe rejected claims, there is a provision for appeal provided underSection 10 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act within a reasonable period. Finally, under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882,Notification is required to be issued declaring the Forest Reserved,after the period fixed under Section 6 for preferring the claims haselapsed and all claims (if any) made within such period, have beendisposed of by the Forest Settlement Officer and in case, such claimshave been made and determined, the appeals presented and disposed ofby the appellate authority. Under Section 16(c) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, allproceedings prescribed by Section 10 have been taken and all lands https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (if any) to be included in the proposed forest, which the ForestSettlement Officer has under Section 10 elected to acquire, under theLand Acquisition Act, 1870 and on such issuance of Notification underSection 16, the lands stand vested in the Government.Under Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, rights inrespect of which no claim has been preferred under Section 6, shallthereafter be extinguished, unless before publication of suchNotification, the person claiming them has satisfied the ForestSettlement Officer that he had sufficient cause for not preferringsuch claim within the period fixed under Section 6, in which case,the Forest Settlement Officer shall proceed to dispose of the claimin the manner provided under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act.17. From the aforesaid provisions of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act,1882 it would be evident that apart from the claim of right ofoccupation and ownership, which can be made under Section 6 anddetermined under Section 10, even after vesting of the land onissuance of the Notification under Section 16, the Forest SettlementOfficer, if on the claim of such right, is satisfied that theclaimant had sufficient cause for not preferring such claim withinthe period fixed under Section 6, can prefer objection under Section17 and in such a case, the Forest Settlement Officer shall proceed todispose of the claim in the manner provided under the Tamil NaduForest Act. 18. In the present case, it has not been brought to the noticeof the Court as to what was the time prescribed under Section 6 ofthe Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, but from the records, it appearsthat such a proclamation under Section 6 was issued on 24.11.1978 andit is informed that the three months' period was prescribed forsubmitting the claim of rights and it is also informed that 36 claimswere received, of which, many claims were rejected in 1979. The rightto claim water course, etc., under Section 10 also lapsed on24.2.1979. However, it is admitted that till date, no Notificationhas been issued under Section 16, declaring the land(s) in questionas 'Forest Reserve' and thus, it cannot be argued that the right toclaim occupancy and ownership or other rights, extinguished underSection 17 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882.19. The learned single Judge has failed to notice the aforesaidprovisions of law and thus, we hold that the members of theappellant-Association still have a right to claim occupancy,ownership and other rights, if they satisfy the Forest SettlementOfficer that they had sufficient cause for not preferring such claimwithin the period fixed under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Actand such a claim can be made under Section 17 of the Tamil NaduForest Act, after publication of the Notification under Section 16 ofthe Tamil Nadu Forest Act, declaring the land(s) as a "ReserveForest". https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

20. The learned single Judge has referred to the decision of theSupreme Court in the case of "M.C.Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and others"reported in 1997 (1) SCC 388, in maintaining the ecology in thecontext of doctrine of public trust, wherein the Supreme Court heldas follows:"The notion that the public has a right to expectcertain lands and natural areas to retain their naturalcharacteristic is finding its way into the law of the land.The ancient Roman Empire developed a legal theory known asthe "Doctrine of the Public Trust". The Public TrustDoctrine primarily rests on the principle that certainresources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such agreat importance to the people as a whole that it would bewholly unjustified to make them a subject of privateownership. The said resources being a gift of nature, theyshould be made freely available to everyone irrespective ofthe status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Governmentto protect the resources for the enjoyment of the generalpublic rather than to permit their use for private ownershipor commercial purposes. Though the public trust doctrineunder the English common law extended only to certaintraditional uses such as navigation, commerce and fishing,the American Courts in recent cases expanded the concept ofthe public trust doctrine. The observations of the SupremeCourt of California in Mono Lake case clearly show thejudicial concern in protecting all ecologically importantlands, for example fresh water, wetlands or riparianforests. The observations therein to the effect that theprotection of ecological values is among the purposes ofpublic trust, may give rise to an argument that the ecologyand the environment protection is a relevant factor todetermine which lands, waters or airs are protected by thepublic trust doctrine. The Courts in United States arefinally beginning to adopt this reasoning and are expandingthe public trust doctrine should not be expanded to includeall ecosystems operating in our natural resources. Our legalsystem-based on English Common law-includes the public trustdoctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is thetrustee of all natural resources which are by nature meantfor public use and enjoyment. Public at large is thebeneficiary of the sea-shore, running waters, airs, forestsand ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee isunder a legal duty to protect the natural resources. Theseresources meant for public use cannot be converted intoprivate ownership. Thus the Public Trust doctrine is a partof the law of the land." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

21. Learned single Judge has also placed reliance on thedecision of the Supreme Court regarding maintenance of ecologybalance and environmental protection in the case of "T.N.GodavarmanThirumalpad vs. Union of India and others" reported in 2002 (10) SCC606, wherein the Supreme Court observed as follows:"19. Environmental law is an instrument to protect andimprove the environment and to control or prevent any actor omission polluting or likely to pollute the environment.In view of the enormous challenges thrown by the industrialrevolution, the legislatures throughout the world are busyin this exercise. Many have enacted laws long back and theyare busy in remodelling the environmental law. The othershave moved their law-making machineries in this directionexcept the underdeveloped States who have yet to come inthis wavelength. India was one of those few countries whichpaid attention right from the ancient times down to thepresent age and till date, the tailoring of the existinglaw to suit the changing conditions is going on. Theproblem of law-making and amending is a difficult task inthis area. There are a variety of colours of this problem.For example, the industrial revolution and the evolution ofcertain cultural and moral values of humanity and the ruraland urban area developments in agricultural technology,waste, barren or industrial belts; developed, developingand underdeveloped parts of the lands; the rich and poorIndians; the population explosion and the industrialimplosion; the people’s increasing awareness and thedecreasing State exchequer; the promises in the politicalmanifestos and the State’s development action. In thiswhole gamut of problems the Tiwari Committee came out withthe data that we have in India "nearly five hundredenvironmental laws" and the Committee pointed out that nosystematic study had been undertaken to evaluate thoselegislative developments. Some legal controls andtechniques have been adopted by the legislatures in thefield of Indian environmental laws. Different legislativecontrols right from the ancient times, down to the modernperiod make interesting reading. Attention has to be paidto identify the areas of great concern to the legislature;the techniques adopted to solve those problems; thepollutants which require continuous exercises; the role ofthe legislature and people’s participation outside. Theseare some of many areas which attract the attention in thestudy of history of the Indian environmental law.20. Since time immemorial, natural objects like riversenjoyed a high position in the life of the society. They https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ were considered as goddesses having not only purifyingcapacity but also self-purifying ability. Fouling of thewater of a river was considered a sin and it attractedpunishments of different grades which included penance,outcasting, fine etc. The earth or soil also equally hadthe same importance, and the ancient literature providedthe means to purify the polluted soil. The above are someof the many illustrations to support the view thatenvironmental pollution was controlled rigidly in theancient times. It was not an affair limited to anindividual or individuals but the society as a wholeaccepted its duty to protect the environment. The "dharma"of environment was to sustain and ensure progress andwelfare of all. The inner urge of the individuals to followthe set norms of the society, motivated them to allow thenatural objects to remain in the natural state. Apart fromthis motivation, there was the fear of punishment. Therewere efforts not just to punish the culprit but to balancethe ecosystems. The noteworthy development in this periodwas that each individual knew his duty to protect theenvironment and he tried to act accordingly. Those aspectshave been highlighted by a learned author C.M.Jariwala inhis article "Changing Dimensions of the IndianEnvironmental Law" in the book Law and Environment byP.Leelakrishnan.21. The Economic and Special Council of the UnitedNations passed a resolution on 30-7-1968 on the question ofconvening an international conference on problems of humanenvironment. In the United Nations Conference on HumanEnvironment at Stockholm from 6-6-1972 to 16-6-1972,proclamation was made on United Nations on HumanEnvironment. It was stated in the proclamation in theseprofound words:"Man is both creature and moulder of hisenvironment which gives him physical sustenance andaffords him the opportunity for intellectual, moral,social and spiritual growth. In the long and tortuousevolution of the human race on this planet a stage hasbeen reached when through the rapid acceleration ofscience and technology, man has acquired the power totransform his environment in countless ways and on anunprecedented scale. Both aspects of man'senvironment, the natural and the man-made, areessential to his well-being and to the enjoyment ofbasic human rights even the right to life itself. The protection and improvement of the humanenvironment is a major issue which affects the well- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ being of people and economic development throughoutthe world, it is the urgent desire of the peoples ofthe whole world and the duty of all Governments."22. When the necessity to promote the environmentturned grave, doubt was expressed by some commentatorswhether the issue of the environment would last. They havebeen proved wrong, since it is clearly one of the bigissues, perhaps the biggest issue of the 1990s. It is a bigissue in political terms, since protection of theenvironment is high on most people’s priorities for the1990s. As a result political parties and Governments arefalling over each other in their eagerness to appear green,even if as yet their actions rarely match their rhetoric.It is big in terms of the size of the problem faced and thesolutions required; global warming, the destruction of theozone layer, acid rain, deforestation, overpopulation andtoxic waste are all global issues which require anappropriate global response. It is big in terms of therange of problems and issues--air pollution, waterpollution, noise pollution, waste disposal, radioactivity,pesticides, countryside protection, conservation ofwildlife--the list is virtually endless. As observed bySimon Bell and Stuart Bell in Environmental Law:"....In the words of the White Paper on theEnvironment. This Common Inheritance (cm. 1200, 1990)the issues range 'from the street corner to thestratosphere'. Finally, it is big in terms of theknowledge and skills required to understand aparticular issue. Law is only one element in what is amajor cross-disciplinary topic. Lawyers need someunderstanding of the scientific, political andeconomic processes involved in environmentaldegradation. Equally all those whose activities andinterests relate to the environment need to acquire anunderstanding of the structure and content ofenvironmental law, since it has a large and increasingrole to play in environmental protection." 22. It has not been made clear as to how the aforesaidobservations made by the Supreme Court will affect the right of theScheduled Tribes, who can claim their right of occupancy andownership, including the right of way, right of water course, or useof water, right of pasture, or right of forest produce, as prescribedunder Section 4(c) read with Section 6(d) and determined underSection 10 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23. In India, one cannot think of a Scheduled Tribe without aforest. In Arabian countries, there are Tribes in the deserts. InIndia, the Tribes mostly live in forests and depends on the forestlands for bona-fide livelihood needs. Apart from the forest dwellingScheduled Tribes, there are other traditional forest dwellers, whoare also depending on the forest, its produce and the forest lands.They do not disturb the conservancy or bio-diversity or ecologicalbalance. In fact, the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and othertraditional forest dwellers, who are depending on forest produce andthe forest, conserve bio-diversity and maintain the ecologicalbalance by conserving the forest. They do not allow others to destroythe forest. It is for the said reason, even under the Tamil NaduForest Act, 1882, the claim of rights of occupancy and ownership,even in the "reserve forest" was recognised and is still continuing. 24. The Act, namely The Scheduled Tribes and Other TraditionalForest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 was enactedand published in the Gazette of India, on 2.1.2007 to recognise andvest the forest rights and occupation in forest land in forestdwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers whohave been residing in such forests for generations, but whose rightscould not be recorded; to provide for a framework for recording theforest rights so vested and the nature of evidence required for suchrecognition and vesting in respect of forest land. It was also madefor strengthening the conservation regime of the forests whileensuring livelihood and food security of the forest dwellingScheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. It was alsonoticed that the forest rights on ancestral lands and their habitatwere not adequately recognised in the consolidation of State forestsduring the colonial period as well as in independent India resultingin historical injustice to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes andother traditional forest dwellers who are integral to the verysurvival and sustainability of the forest ecosystem. These will beevident from the objects of the Scheduled Tribes and otherTraditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006(for short, 'the Act, 2006').Section 2(c) of the Act, 2006, defines the "forest dwellingScheduled Tribes" as under:"Section 2(c): "forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes"means the members or community of the Scheduled Tribes whoprimarily reside in and who depend on the forest or forestlands for bona fide livelihood needs and includes theScheduled Tribes pastoralist communities."Section 2(o) defines "other traditional forest dweller", asquoted hereunder: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Section 2(o): "other traditional forest dweller" meansany member or community who has for at least threegenerations prior to the 13th day of December, 2005primarily resided in and who depend on the forest or forestsland for bona fide livelihood needs.""Forest land" means land of any description falling within anyforest area and includes unclassified forests, undemarcated forests,existing or deemed forests, protected forests, reserved forests,Sanctuaries and National Parks, as evident from Section 2(d) of theAct, 2006. The "Forest Rights" have been dealt with under Chapter II of theAct, 2006, and relevant portion of the same is quoted hereunder:"Section 3: (1) For the purposes of this Act, thefollowing rights, which secure individual or communitytenure or both, shall be the forest rights of forestdwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forestdwellers on all forest lands, namely:-........(g) rights for conversion of Pattas or leases or grantsissued by any local authority or any State Government onforest lands to titles;(h) rights of settlement and conversion of all forestvillages, old habitation, unsurveyed villages and othervillages in forests, whether recorded, notified or not intorevenue villages;(i) right to protect, regenerate or conserve or manageany community forest resource which they have beentraditionally protecting and conserving for sustainable use;(j) rights which are recognised under any State law orlaws of any Autonomous District Council or AutonomousRegional Council or which are accepted as rights of tribalsunder any traditional or customary law of the concernedtribes of any State;(k) right of access to biodiversity and community rightto intellectual property and traditional knowledge relatedto biodiversity and cultural diversity;(l) any other traditional right customarily enjoyed bythe forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes or other traditionalforest dwellers, as the case may be, which are not mentionedin clauses (a) to (k) but excluding the traditional right ofhunting or trapping or extracting a part of the body of anyspecies of wild animal; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (m) right to in situ rehabilitation includingalternative land in cases where the Scheduled Tribes andother traditional forest dwellers have been illegallyevicted or displaced from forest land of any descriptionwithout receiving their legal entitlement to rehabilitationprior to the 13th day of December, 2005."It would be evident that the forest dwellers, Scheduled Tribesand other traditional forest dwellers have right of conversion ofpattas or leases or grants issued by any local authority or any StateGovernment on the forest land(s) to titles.Recognition, restoration and vesting of forest rights in forestdwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, havebeen provided under Chapter III of the Act, 2006, relevant portion ofwhich are discussed hereunder:Under Section 4(3), while such recognition and vesting of forestrights under the Act, 2006, shall be subject to the condition thatsuch Scheduled Tribes or tribal communities or other traditionalforest dwellers had occupied forest land before 13.12.2005, underSection 4(4), a right conferred by Section 4(1) shall be heritablebut not alienable or transferable and shall be registered jointly inthe name of both the spouses in case of married persons. UnderSection 4(5), no member of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or othertraditional forest dweller shall be evicted or removed from forestland under his occupation till the recognition and verificationprocedure is complete. Chapter IV of the Act, 2006, prescribes the authorities andprocedures for vesting of forest rights. Under Section 6(1), the Gram Sabha is authorised to initiate theprocess for determining the nature and extent of individual orcommunity forest rights or both that may be given to the forestdwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers.Against the decision of the Gram Sabha, any person aggrieved hasa right to prefer a petition under Section 6(2) to the Sub-DivisionalLevel Committee constituted under Section 6(3). There is a provision for further petition under Section 6(4)before the District Level Committee against the decision of the Sub-Divisional Level Committee.Under Section 6(5), the State Government is empowered toconstitute a District Level Committee, whose decision regarding theforest right is final under Section 6(6). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

25. The Rules, namely the Scheduled Tribes and Other TraditionalForest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights), Rules, 2007 (forshort, 'the Rules, 2007'), have been framed under Section 14(1) ofthe Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers(Recognition of Forest Rights), Act, 2006, and published in theGazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, dated 1.1.2008.It has come into effect and in the said Rules, 2007, provisionhas been made as to how Gram Sabha shall be convened by the GramPanchayat, as evident from Rule 3; the functions of the Gram Sabhais prescribed under Rule 4, which includes initiating the process ofdetermining the nature and extent of forest rights, receive and hearthe claims thereto; preparation of list of claimants of forest rightsand maintain a register containing such details of claimants andtheir claims as the Central Government, may by order determine, etc.Sub-Divisional Level Committee has to be constituted by theState Government in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules, 2007 and the saidSub-Divisional Level Committee is required to function and determinein the manner prescribed under Rule 6. The State Government is also required to constitute a DistrictLevel Committee in terms of Rule 7, which is required to function interms of Rule 8.There is a State Level Monitoring Committee to be constituted bythe State Government in terms of Rule 9, which is required tofunction and devise the criteria and indicators for monitoring theprocess of recognition and vesting of forest rights, etc., in themanner prescribed under Rule 10. The process of verifying claims by Forest Rights Committee andthe evidence for determination of forest rights, have also beenprescribed under Rules 12 and 13 of the Rules, 2007, respectively.Form-A is enclosed with the said Rules, 2007 in terms of Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2007, wherein the details of the claimants, hisname, spouse name, etc., are to be reflected and the extent of theright claimed on the land is also to be reflected therein.26. The forest right over the land(s) has been casually referredto as "title" for the purposes of Act, 2006 and Rules, 2007, and theTamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, but like title under the general law, itis not alienable or transferable, though it is heritable bydescendants.27. In view of the aforesaid Act, 2006 and the Rules, 2007framed thereunder, if one or other member of the appellant- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Association can show that he or she is a forest dwelling ScheduledTribe or any other traditional forest dweller, primarily residing andis depending on the forest or forest land(s) for bona-fide livelihoodneeds, can bring such evidence on record, they have a right toconsider their case of vesting of the "forest rights" as providedunder Section 3 of the Act, 2006 and cannot be evicted from the land(s) till such rights are determined.28. It has been brought to our notice that the Act, 2006, hasbeen challenged before this Court in the case of "V.Sambasivam vs.Govt. of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, rep. by its Secretary,Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001 and others" in Writ PetitionNo.4533 of 2008 and in the said case, while challenging the said Act,2006, M.P.No.1 of 2008 was also filed for grant of order of interiminjunction restraining the respondents therein from giving effect tothe said Act, 2006, pending disposal of the above said Writ Petition.A Division Bench of this Court, by its unreported order dated30.4.2008 in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.No.4533 of 2008, while noticingthe relevant provisions of the Act, 2006, refused to grant interiminjunction as sought for, but issued the following directions by wayof interim order:"11. Therefore, we issue the following directions:(a) If claims are made for community rights or rightsto forest land and applications are submitted as perSections 3 and 4 of the Act read with Rules 11 and 12 ofthe Rules, then the process of verification of the claimafter intimation to the concerned claimant shall go on, butbefore the certificate of title is actually issued, ordersshall be obtained from this Court.(b) As regards felling of tress for providingdiversion of forest land under Section 3(2) of the Act isconcerned, the process shall go on till the clearance ofsuch development projects and also the Gram Sabha'srecommendation is obtained but before the actual felling oftress, orders shall be obtained from this Court."29. Therefore, it will be also evident that under the Act, 2006,the members of the appellant-Association have a right forconsideration of their cases for "forest rights" conferred underSection 3 of the Act, 2006 and till the claim is finalised, they havea right to hold the land in their possession and till such a decisionis given, in terms of the said interim order of this Court, the claimas made by the members of the appellant-Association, is required tobe verified in terms of the Act, 2006, but for issuance of patta orcertificate of title, order is required to be obtained from thisCourt, in view of the interim order aforesaid passed in M.P.No.1 of2008 in W.P.No.4533 of 2008, dated 30.4.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

30. We have already held that the members of the appellant-Association have a right to make their claim under Section 17 of theTamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, after the notification under Section 16of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, is issued, subject to theconditions that if they satisfy the reasons for not filing the claimwithin the time prescribed under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu ForestAct, 1882.31. In view of the aforesaid provisions of law, as referred toabove, we are of the view that the claim of the members of theappellant-Association should be re-considered and the impugned orderpassed by the learned single Judge cannot come in their way to defeattheir claim. We accordingly set aside the impugned order passed bythe learned single Judge in W.P.No.10954 of 2005, dated 1.4.2005 andremit the case to the respondents to re-consider the case of themembers of the appellant-Association in terms of the provisions ofthe Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, read with Scheduled Tribesand Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)Rules, 2007 and after determination of their claim, if so required,the respondents will obtain permission of this Court before issuanceof certificate of title in favour of one or other member of theappellant-Association, in view of interim order as noticed and quotedabove. 32. The Writ Appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observationsand directions. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarcsTo1. The Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2. The Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.4. The District Revenue Officer, Salem District, Salem.5. The Forest Settlement Officer, Attur, Salem District.+ 3 cc to Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan, Advocate (CC SR No.55152)+ One cc to Govt. Pleader (CC SR No.55234)Judgment inWrit Appeal No.376 of 2008GV (CO)RH (3.11.09)