WA/1969/2025 of A.SHANMUGAM Vs The State of Tamil Nadu on 9 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by GK.Muthukumaar J.) This Writ appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the dismissal of the writ petition filed seeking to quash the Letter No.1326/FR.12/2018-22 dated 16.11.2023 issued by the second respondent and to direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider the status report dated 8.9.2023 filed by the third respondent in so far as it relates to exempting the appellant’s lands from the purview of the notification issued under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949 (In short, TNPPF Act).

2. Background of the case: The appellant claims to have been assigned an extent of 1.70 acres of land in Old S.No.175/73 pertaining to New S.No.534/1 and an extent of 1.30 acres of land in Old S.No.175/70 pertaining to New S.No.534/3 in Munnanad Village, Nilgiris District. The assignment was made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudalur by his proceedings dated 24.07.1972. After the expiry of the statutory period of ten years, the appellant was granted a ryotwari patta and was thereafter issued a new patta. The said lands were recorded as patta lands in the revenue records, including the Chitta, A-Registrar, Adangal and F.M.B.

3. In such circumstances, the fourth respondent by Gazettee Notification dated 15.11.1991, declared a large track of lands in Udhagamandalam, Gudalur and Pandalur Taluks in Nilgiri District, as private forest under Section 1(2)(iii) of the TNPPF Act. The appellant claims to have become aware of this notification only in 2009, when the fourth respondent, the District Collector, issued a letter dated 21.08.2009 to the District Registrar directing verification of records so as to ascertain whether land declared and notified as private forest has been subjected to registrations.

4. The litigation thus commenced with the filing of the first writ petition in W.P.No.5825 of 2010, challenging the said notification dated 15.11.1991 issued by the fourth respondent, the District Collector. This writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 12.07.2011. The writ appeal filed by the appellant herein in W.A.No.2154 of 2011 was disposed off with a direction to the High Level Committee constituted by the State Government to examine the issues arising under the TNPPF Act. However, the Committee submitted a report on 17.05.2013 without examining the issue of exemption of the lands from the applicability of the provisions of the TNPPF Act. This led to the appellant filing a second writ petition in W.P.No.34291 of 2017, seeking a direction to the authorities to examine his further representations.

5. A status report dated 8.9.2023 was filed in this writ petition, stating that the appellant’s lands had been inadvertently included within the purview of the TNPPF Act and that the lands were patta lands and had not been classified or notified as private forests under any notification or law. The writ petition was however disposed of by an order dated 14.9.2023, directing the authorities to examine the appellant’s representation and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law.

6. The appellant thereafter submitted a fresh representation on 28.12.2023, which was however rejected by the second respondent letter dated 16.11.2023. This led to the filing of the third writ petition in W.P.No.9138 of 2024, the order passed therein being the subject of challenge in the present writ appeal.

7. In this writ petition, the appellant’s primary contention was that his lands had been inadvertently included as private forest lands in the notification dated 15.11.1991. Relying on the status report dated 08.09.2023, he sought to quash Letter No.1326/FR.12/2018-22 dated 16.11.2023, issued by the second respondent.

8. The second respondent herein filed a counter affidavit and contested the said writ petition. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed by order dated 27.01.2025 and in view of which the appellant has preferred the present writ appeal before this Court.

9. It is thus evident that this is the third round of litigation concerning the inclusion of the appellant’s lands in the Gazettee Notification dated 15.11.1991, declaring them as forest land under the TNPPF Act.

10. Heard Mr.Vijay Mehanath, Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr.Mohamed Fayaz Ali, Learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

11. The primary contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant’s said lands are private patta lands and that the same have been in the exclusive ownership and enjoyment of the appellant for a long number of years and that it was totally unnecessary for the Government to have passed the Gazette Notification dated 15.11.1991, declaring the appellant’s land as private forest land. The prime contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant are two fold. Firstly, he would contend that the extent of the appellant’s lands, being less than two hectares, falls outside the purview of the lands that can be considered eligible for declaration as private forest lands, as mandated under Section 1(2)(iii) of the TNPPF Act. As such, he would contend that the inclusion of the lands as private forest lands in the Gazettee Notification dated 15.11.1991 by the fourth respondent, District Collector, is totally erroneous and contrary to the said provisions of the TNPPF Act. His second contention would be that, in the light of the status report dated 8.9.2023 filed on behalf of the fourth respondent in W.P.No.34291 of 2017, to the effect that the appellant’s lands have not been classified or notified as forest land under any notification or law and in such circumstances, the inclusion of the appellant’s lands as forest lands under the Gazettee Notification dated 15.11.1991 is totally erroneous and hence the appellant’s lands have to be brought out of the purview of the said notification.

12. However, Mr.Mohamed Fayaz Ali, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the appellant are totally incorrect. This is because the appellant’s lands are not less than two hectares but exceed two hectares. This is for the reason that the land owned by the appellant’s family was in excess of two hectares and that, in view of division of land between the family members, the extent of holding by each individual has been reduced. He would further contend that the contiguous land was the subject matter of the notification and that this exceeds two hectares and as such, the notification of the appellant’s land as forest land under the notification dated 15.11.1991 is squarely within the ambit of Section 1(2)(iii) of the TNPPF Act. As regards the status report, he would contend that the same was not filed by the District Collector, but by the

District Revenue Officer, who was in-charge in the absence of the District Collector. He would further contend that the District Revenue Officer had no authority to file such a report and that the report is totally erroneous and cannot be relied upon to further the cause of the appellant. He would therefore contend that the order dismissing the writ petition is a well-reasoned order on merits and hence this writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.

13. Upon hearing the submissions of both sides and considering the material on record, this Court finds that the points which arise for consideration is this writ appeal are; (a)Whether the appellant’s lands are private forest lands falling within the purview of Section 1(2)(iii) of the TNPPF Act or not?

(b) The validity and sanctity of the status report dated 8.9.2023? Point No.I

14. To address this aspect, it is necessary to have a look at Section 1(2)

(iii) of TNPPF Act, which is extracted hereunder; “1(1) This Act may be called the [Tamil Nadu] Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949.

(2) It applies

(i) [Clause (I) and the Explanation thereto were omitted by Section 2(i) of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests

(Amendment) Act, 1957 (Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1957).]

(ii) to forests situated in estates as defined in the [Tamil Nadu] Estate Land Act, 1908, in the [State of Tamil Nadu];

(iii) To private forests situated in other areas in the [State of Tamil Nadu] and having a contiguous area exceeding [2 hectares] which may be declared by the District Collector to be forests for the purposes of this Act, by notification, in the District Gazette” From the above definition, it is clear that under Clause (iii) of Section 1(2) of TNPPF Act, private forests having a contiguous area exceeding two hectares alone are capable of being declared as forest lands by the District Collector, by notification in the District Gazette.

15. We take note of the fact that the TNPPF Act has been enacted to prevent indiscriminate destruction of private forests and to prevent interference with customary and prescriptive rights and that the Act applies to private forests situated in other areas of the State of Tamil Nadu where the contiguous lands exceed two hectares. We also note that it does not apply to reserved forest constituted under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882.

16. In the instant case, it is seen that the District Collector, issued the District Gazette Notification dated 15.11.1991, including the appellant’s said lands as forest lands under the said notification apart from various other lands in

the said three Taluks in Nilgiri District. In this regard, we find that there were divisions of land between the family members of the appellant and in view of which, the appellant’s landholding has fallen below two hectares. There is no material on record furnished by the appellant to establish in which year the family partition of land took place and the extent of land held by the appellant and his family as on the date of the notification. Therefore, it is evident that the contiguous land held by the appellant and his family was more than two hectares and this fact has not been denied or disputed by the appellant. The Writ Court has held that the appellant had suppressed facts in this regard. It it further evident that, owing to various divisions within the family of the appellant for various reasons, which the appellant has not disclosed, the appellant came to be recognised as the owner of the tracts of land in the said survey numbers. Therefore, the fact that the appellant’s lands in these two survey numbers are part of a larger extended that they have been declared as forest lands is not disputed by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant cannot take advantage of the division of lands owing to various circumstances in his family and claim exemption, as the lands prior to division in the appellant’s family was more than two hectares and formed a contiguous land mass. In such circumstances, the appellant’s claim that his lands were less than two hectares is unacceptable for the purpose of non-applicability of Section 1(2)(iii) of TNPPF Act. Therefore, this contention of the appellant is rejected and this point is answered accordingly.

Point No.II

17. As regards the second point with regard to the reliance of the status report by the counsel for the appellant, we find that the Writ Court has at paragraph 25 to 27 of the impugned order under appeal given a detailed finding as to why the same cannot be relied upon. Upon our independent perusal of the status report, we also find that the same has not been filed by the District Collector, nor counter signed by him after he assumed office. It is also not the case that the District Revenue Officer who filed the status report was authorised to do so. Therefore, we only concur with the findings of the Writ Court that the District Revenue Officer has no right or authority to file a status report so as to bring the appellant’s said lands, outside the purview of the notification dated 15.11.1991. That apart, even on merits, the status report cannot be relied upon for the simple reason that the District Revenue Officer has not taken into account the fact that the lands of the appellant was infact a part of a larger area of land comprised in the said survey numbers and the said larger area of land was more than two hectares, all of which have been held by the appellant’s family. Therefore, we only find that the said status report does not deserve any consideration and the appellant’s reliance on the same cannot be merited. Therefore, Point No.II is answered accordingly.

18. Further, this Court also finds that in a subsequent writ petition, in W.P.No.27312 of 2016, to which one of us was a party, by order dated

12.9.2025, the validity of the said notification dated 15.11.1991 was upheld. The relevant paragraphs of this order are extracted hereunder: “12. It is also relevant to be noted that the present writ petition challenging the very same notification is not only barred by principle of res judicata but also by laches. Principle of res judicata is rested on public policy and repeatedly relitigating the same issue runs counter to the same. The notification was issued in the year 1991 and the challenge to the notification was dismissed both by the Writ Court as well as the Division Benches of this Court (W.A.Nos.35 of 2012 and 405 of 2012), the present writ petition is filed in the year 2016 after much water has flown.

13. It is also relevant to note that the entire area in respect of which the notification is issued and most of the areas where the writ petitioner claims right over of the properties are already declared as elephant corridor vide Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010. That Government Order is also put to challenge before this Court and the Division Bench has also upheld the Government Order, on appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal.Nos.3438 to 3439 of 2020 dated 14.10.2020 has upheld the Government Order. While upholding the Government Order, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that corridorrs are narrow and linear patches of forest which establish and facilitate connectivity across habitats. When the entire area has been notified as a elephant corridor, Government Order is upheld, wherein, the petitioner association is also party before the Hon’ble Apex Court, now, they are estopped from claiming that their lands do not fall within the ambit of TNPPF Act.

14. It is also to be noted that while upholding the Government Order, the Hon’ble Apex Court has constituted a three member committee only to look into certain grievance of the petitioners with regard to their so-called building license and constructions etc., The committee was headed by a retired judge of this Court, viz., Hon’ble Mr.Venkatraman (Retd) with two others experts in the field. The finding of the Committee is also put to challenge before this Court in a batch of writ petitions in WP.Nos.26182 of 2023 etc., cases. This Court heard the writ petitions and we have passed a detailed order with regard to the importance of the elephant corridor. Therefore, after the notification, the entire lands which have been declared as elephant corridor, it is too late for the petitioner to challenge the notification issued under the TNPPF Act.

16. With regard to the contention that the notification is a mere dead letter and that the doctrine of desuetude applies, as already stated, the press release has been issued consequent upon the agitations shown by the people when the earlier G.O.Ms.No.2837, Agriculture Department dated 17.09.1969 prohibiting the industrial area within 5 kilometers radius was issued. Further, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that many permissions have been accorded for sale of the property under the TNPPF Act, in fact, certain members also sought ratifications and the dismissal order is also challenged in a writ petition filed before this Court in WP.No.27924 of 2024. All these facts clearly indicate that the notification has been put in use, several permissions have been regularly obtained by the Committee, therefore, it cannot be said that the entire notification is a dead letter not come into force. Such view of the matter, this writ petition is nothing but a clear abuse process of law.”

19. From the above, it is seen that the validity of the notification dated 15.11.1991, which is the subject matter of the appellant’s grievance, has been upheld in W.P.No.27312 of 2016. Thereafter, much water has flown under the bridge and hence, the appellant is estopped from claiming that his lands do not fall within the scope and ambit of the TNPPF Act.

20. Therefore, we answer both point No.I and II against the appellant.

21. Therefore, in view of our findings on Point Nos.1 and 2 against the appellant, we find that this Writ Appeal is without merit and as such, it deserves to be dismissed.

22. However, the attention of this Court was drawn by the Counsel for the appellant to an order this Court dated 12.07.2011 passed in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.24575 of 2009 and others, wherein it has been held that the TNPPF Act, is only regulatory and not appropriatory in character and that, in view of the notification dated 15.11.1991, the private landowners such as the appellant are bound to seek prior sanction of the Committee before alienating their lands by virtue of any contract or for cutting any trees or doing any act that would deminish the sanctity of the lands as private forests. The Counsel for the appellant relying on this order, sought similar relief in the event of this Writ Appeal being dismissed. Therefore, considering the request, we grant liberty to the appellant to approach the Level Committee or any other competent authority appointed by the Government in this regard to obtain prior sanction before dealing with the said lands. All appeal and other remedies under the TNPPF Act will enure to the benefit of the appellant in future with regard to any sanction he may seek in this regard.

23. In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the Learned Single Judge. However, the appellant is at liberty to approach the Committee or any other competent authority appointed by the Government to obtain prior sanction before dealing with the subject lands as mentioned in the earlier paragraph of this judgment.

24. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No VKR

To The Sub Assistant Registrar (Original Side), High Court of Madras, Chennai.

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR, J. VKR WA No. 1969 of 2025 09-10-2026