Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

N.LAKSHMANAN versus THE COLLECTOR

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


N.Lakshmanan v. The Collector - WA.No.3708 of 2002 [2007] RD-TN 617 (20 February 2007)

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 20.02.2007

Coram:

The Honourable Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAM and

The Honourable Mr.Justice N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

Writ Appeal No.3708 of 2002

1.N.Lakshmanan

2.Rajendran

3.Vadamalal

4.Perumal Reddy

5.Sanjeevi Reddy

6.Chinnappa Reddy

7.Raja

8.Krishnan

9.Palani .. Appellants Vs..

1.The Collector,

Tiruvallur District,

Tiruvallur.

2.The Tahsildar,

Pallipet Taluk,

Pallipet, Tiruvallur District.

3.The District Forest Officer,

Tiruvallur,

Tiruvallur District.

(R3 impleaded as party

respondent vide order of Court

dt.20.2.2007 made in WAMP.3431/2005) .. Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed in W.P.No.29779 of 2002 dated 12.08.2002.

For Appellants : Mr.G.Jermiah for Mr.P.Krishnan

For respondents : Mr.P.Subramanian

Government Advocate

JUDGMENT



(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM,J.) The above writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 12.08.2002 passed in W.P.No.29779 of 2002, in and by which, the learned Judge, after finding no merit, has dismissed the writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

` 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, by taking us through the proceedings of Forest Settlement Officer and other documents, has submitted that in view of their possession and recognition by the Forest Department, they are entitled to patta. He also contended that without adverting to those materials, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that they are encroachers of the forest land.

4. We have verified the relevant proceedings, which are annexed in the typed set of papers as well as the order of the learned single Judge dated 12.08.2002 and the counter affidavit of the Tahsildar, Pallipat, filed on behalf of the respondents in the writ appeal.

5. It is also relevant to refer the stand taken by the respondents in para 4 of the counter affidavit, which are as follows:-

"I submit that this is a case in which the encroachers have occupied this land at the time of enquiry by Forest Settlement Officer at the time have considered for the exclusion of this area from Reserve Forest and this particular survey No.... in which encroachment were made. Inasmuch as the notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act, 1882 was published for entire portion including the excluded area ordered by the Forest Settlement Officer. Even though the encroached area was excluded by Forest Settlement Officer from the purview of Reserve Forest the earlier notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act, 1882 holds good in respect of excluded portion also. According to the Act, such excluded portion can be assigned only getting concurrence of the Government under Section 24 of the Forest Act, 1882. As such any assignment of excluded portion can be done under ordinary assignment rules only after obtaining concurrence of the Government under Section 24 of Forest Act, 1882."

6. In view of the stand of the respondents, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met by permitting the appellants to make a representation to the first respondent, Collector, Thiruvallur District, highlighting their grievance, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such representation/representations are made, the first respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of four months thereafter, after affording opportunity to the appellants.

7. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

8. In view of the assertion that the appellants are in possession of the land in question and also taking note of the injunction order passed by the Division Bench even as early as 09.12.2002 and the same was made absolute on 13.08.2003, it is made clear that their possession shall not be disturbed till final decision being taken by the first respondent as directed above.

raa

To

1.The Collector,

Tiruvallur District,

Tiruvallur.

2.The Tahsildar,

Pallipet Taluk,

Pallipet, Tiruvallur District.

3.The District Forest Officer,

Tiruvallur,

Tiruvallur District.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.