HC upholds govt order declaring land as reserve forest

Image
Press Trust of India Chennai
Last Updated : Dec 07 2013 | 9:00 PM IST
Madras High Court has upheld Tamil Nadu government's order of 2010, declaring about 3383 hectares of land in Sirumalai in Dindigul district as reserve forest.
A division Bench comprising Chief Justice R K Agrawal and Justice M Sathyanarayanan dismissed a batch of over 200 appeals from Sirumalai Farmers Association, challenging a single judge's order, rejecting their plea to quash the February 4, 2010 Government Order.
Concurring with submissions of special government pleader (forest) M K Subramanian, the Bench said the government order and gazette notification revealed proper application of mind of the authorities before declaring the land as reserve forest and either predecessors in title or petitioners had not submitted objections/representations after issuance of proclamation.
The Bench said it was pertinent to point out that acting on a PIL in 2005, a direction was given to complete the process of declaring the reserve forest and to identify and remove encroachers. A time frame was also stipulated and government initiated action to comply with the said order, it said.
On the submission that petitioners are 'other traditional forest dwellers' and so their rights are protected under Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, the Bench said it lacks merit because as per the Act, such dwellers meant any member or community who had for at least three generations prior to December 13, 2005 resided in and who depended on forest or forests land for their livelihood.
The appellants on their own admission claimed to have been in possession of the land only for one generation and so could claim any right under the Act, the court said.
The judges said the appellants had failed to substantiate their legal rights on land declared as reserve forest.
The single judge, on in-depth analysis on the factual aspects and legal position, had concluded they had failed to establish any legal or enforceable rights in getting relief and this court did not find any error or infirmity in his findings, they said.
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Dec 07 2013 | 9:00 PM IST

Next Story