IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON        :   18.11.2022

PRONOUNCED ON   :   30.06.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

W.P.No.9378 of 2013 and W.M.P.No.23969 & 23972 of 2013

M.Guruchand Vaid                                                     …   Petitioner

vs

1.Collector of Nilgiris District &     Chairman of the Committee Constituted         under Tamil Nadu Preservation of

Private Forest Act, 1949,

Collector’s Office,

Udhagamandalam 643 001,

Nilgiris District.

2.The District Forest Officer,

Gudalur Division,     Gudalur Post,     Nilgiris District.

3. The Deputy Director,

Mudumalai Tigeer-Reserve,      Masinagudi, The Nilgiris District.

( R3 suo-motu impleaded vide Order

Dt.08.04.2022 made in W.P.No.9378/2013)          …   Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents to interfere with the right of the petitioner to cut silviculturally matured, flowered and deed bamboo from the petitioner’s land in Survey Nos.274/1 and 275 (Old Survey Nos.212/1A and 236/1B1) of Masinagudi Village, Udhagamandalam Taluk, Nilgiris District.

For Petitioner           : Mr.M.Sathish Parasaran

Senior Counsel                                                      for M/s.P.Mahalakshmi

For Respondents : Mr.V.Arun

Addl.Advocate General

Assisted by

Mr.T.Seenivasan

Spl.Govt.Pleader (Forest)                                                      Senior Standing Counsel.

Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran for                                                      petitioner in WMPs.

O R D E R

The  petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following relief:-

To issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction forbearing the respondents herein to interfere with the right of the petitioner to cut silviculturally matured, flowered and dead bamboo from the petitioner’s land in survey Nos.274/1 and 275(old survey Nos.212/1A and 236/1B1) of Masinagudi Village, Udhagamandalam Taluk, Nilgiris District and pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has made elaborate submission. I shall try to capture the submission of the learned Senior Counsel.
3. The petitioner filed an application on 27.3.2007 under Section 3(2) of the Tamilnadu Preservation of Private Forest Act 1949 for permission to cut silviculturally matured, flowered, and dead bamboos standing in the petitioner’s land in S.Nos.274/1 and 275 (O.S.Nos.236/1B1 and 212/1A) of Masinagudi Village,

Udhagamandalam Taluk, Nilgiris District before the Collector of

Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam and Chairman of Committee constituted.

4. In the application, it was stated that the bamboos were planted by the petitioner’s grandfather Late B.Nathmall Vaid during his life time. It was further stated that the petitioner was also having other agro products in the land and if the diseased and dried bamboos are not removed they would affect the other plantations and have propensity of spreading forest fire.
5. In response the above application, the Forest Range Officer vide letter dated 30.09.2008 called on the petitioner to send a list of silviculturally matured, flowered and dead bamboos. The petitioner also complied with the same and sent the list of silviculturally matured, flowered, and dead bamboos which were proposed to be cut vide letter dated 16.11.2008, pursuant to which officials from Revenue Department Soil Conservation Department and Forest Department are said to have visited the land and inspected the land.  However, no permission was granted.
6. On 27.04.2008, the petitioner had sent a reminder and enclosed certain documents granting permission to the petitioner’s grandfather for cutting and removing such bamboos during the year 1961 and 1972. The petitioner further sent reminders on 16.11.2008, 10.03.2010 and 17.05.2011.
7. The petitioner also sent a further reminder dated 8.3.2011 along with a copy of G.O.Ms.No.47 dated 4.6.2008 obtained under the Right to Information Act wherein the Government of Tamil Nadu passed an order and permitted for cutting and clearing of huge quantities of dead, decaying, dried bamboos etc., for sale to M/s.Tamil Nadu News Print Papers Limited during the year 2008-09 from the Reserve Forest in Gudalur by reason of threat of fire hazard. However, there was no reply to any of these letters of the petitioner.
8. No order rejecting the application has been passed till date. A Report dated 16.09.2009 bearing Reference No.0/7949/08 is alleged to have been sent by the District Forest Officer to the Collector of Nilgiris stating that the area in question was coming under the purview of the proposed Elephant Corridor. Bamboo being a stable food for elephants and since the land came under the proposed Elephant Corridor, it was recommenced to not to give permission to the petitioner.
9. However, no decision was taken on account of the alleged negative recommendation of the District Forest Officer dated 16-092010. The decision was allegedly not accepted by the District

Committee formed under Tamilnadu Preservation of Private Forest Act 1949.  It was therefore resolved in the meeting held on 26-04-2012 to call for a further report from the District Forest Officer.

10. It is submitted that, although bamboo is a food for elephant the ban cannot be extended to include silviculturally matured, dried and dead bamboos which are hard to chew and don’t attract elephants which by their natural food habits rejects such kind of dead and dried bamboos for their food requirement.
11. It is submitted that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu

Preservation of Private Forests Act,1949 (herein after referred to as Private Forest Act, 1949 for short) must be construed in accordance with the object for which it was implemented, i.e.“to prevent the indiscriminate destruction of private forests and interference with customary and prescriptive rights therein”.

12. It is submitted that the provisions of the Private Forests Act,

1949 aims to preserve indiscriminate destruction of private forest. However, the provisions of the Private Forests Act, 1949 do not to prohibit any and/or all activities which are legitimate.

13. It is submitted that the provisions of the Private Forests Act, 1949 contemplates the requirement of a prior permission. It is submitted that there is no embargo whatever so as to prevent a pattadar to enjoy of fruits of his harvest in the land in the manner prescribed by Law.
14. It is submitted that the cutting of silviculturally matured bamboos as well as flowered and dead bamboos cannot by any stretch of imagination be interpreted as an act that is likely to indiscriminately destroy or denude the forest or diminish its utility and more particularly the same is not an act of deforestation.
15. It is submitted that the same applies to the provisions of and Tamil Nadu Hill Areas(Preservation of Trees) Act 1955. The very intention of the legislature in constituting a committee under the chairmanship of the District Collector was to further the Objects of the Act and to ensure the right of citizens to enjoy their properties.
16. It is submitted that the decision of this High Court in WP No.l0098 of 2008 relates to exploitation by commercial establishments; buildings etc. including resorts, more particularly encroachers. As such the decision of this court rendered in the above case have no relevance whatever to the relief sought in this Writ Petition by the petitioner.
17. It is submitted that the contention of the respondents regarding

Patta lands as forest by restoring to the definition of Forest in W.P. (C) No. 202/95 dated 12-12-1996 is unduly stretched and the respondents has overlooked the fact that in so far as the state of Tamil Nadu is concerned the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its order dated 12-12-1996 has held that there will be complete ban on cutting of trees in all forest areas, but the same will not however apply to the trees which have been planted or grown they being not of spontaneous growth and to the lands which were not forests earlier.

18. It is further submitted that the Patta lands in question are registered coffee plantation and the restrictions contemplated under law do not apply to Bamboo planted and cultivated. Ban applies only to spontaneously grown bamboo. It is submitted that the bamboos which are sought to be cut were planted by the petitioner’s grandfather during his life time and are not of spontaneous growth. Moreover the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that a distinction should be made between spontaneous growth of fauna and those that were an effort of the owners by cultivation, which was in essence an exercise of their right as a landowner.
19. It is submitted that the report of the Expert Committee constituted to identify “forest” by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.15. Environment and Forest Department dated 20.1.1997, pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated

12.12.1996 in TN.Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India and

 

Others, (1997) 2 SCC 267  have not included the petitioners subject land and so it cannot be classified as a private forest which is evident from the Apex Court’s direction which clarified that the Order has an overriding effect over any the Orders passed by or to be passed by any Government Authority and or Courts and or Tribunals in India.

20. It is submitted that the order dated 14.02.2000 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 would not apply to the case in hand and that the order came to be passed with the view of clarify the Apex Court’s Order dated 12.12.1996 relating to ban on removal of trees from the areas notified under the Wild Life Protection Act 1972. Whereas the lands involved in this writ petition are patta lands and belong to the Petitioner absolutely.
21. It is further submitted that a careful reading of the same will show that the said order was intended to restrain removal of dead, diseased, dying, wind fallen trees, drift wood, grass etc. from any

‘National park’ or ‘sanctuary’ or forests not in private patta lands.

22. It is further submitted that bamboo is not a variety of tree. Bamboo is a grass which has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 18.02.2002 in I.A.No.707 of 2002 in W.P.(C) No.202/1995. It is submitted that it was held that bamboo is not a tree and it really belongs to grass family.
23. It is further submitted that the Supreme Court has permitted cutting of bamboo except in the National Parks and Sanctuaries. Since the subject land is patta land and a private forest of the petitioner with the meaning of the Private Forest Act, 1949, it can neither come within the purview of Elephant Corridor nor within the classification of National Park or Sanctuary and hence the restriction cannot not apply to the petitioners land.
24. It is further submitted that it is false to contend that removal of grass including bamboo affects the survival of elephant ignoring the real purpose of dead, dried and silviculturally matured bamboos which are unfit for consumption as food for elephants which will in fact grossly affect the survival of elephant and other wildlife in the area.
25. It is further submitted that in G.0.Ms.No.1210 F&A Department dated 27.03.1965, the Government of Tamil Nadu in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act,1949 has exempted the flowered bamboo under section 3(2) in so far as it relates to cutting of flowered bamboo.
26. It is submitted that the intention to keep bamboo out of the definition of ‘tree’ is evident from the amendment to the Indian Forests Act notified in 2017 which expressly excluded ‘Bamboo’ from the inclusive definition of tree where the Statement of Objects and Reasons recognizes not only the scientific but also the economic value of bamboo. It was further submitted that Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 has also been amended in 2018 to exclude bamboo from the

definition of tree.

27. It is further submitted that even if the petitioners land is part and parcel of Elephant Corridor, the Annexure-l of the G.0.MS.NO. 125

Environment and Forests (FRS) Department dated 31.08.2010 specifically with regard to the ownership has stated that Elephant Corridor is only as a management activity to take care of the welfare of the elephant and other wildlife and that the notification of the Elephant Corridor has nothing to do with the possession, legal ownership and rights of the petitioners and that the Petitioner is at liberty to use his patta land which is falling in the Elephant Corridor area without infringing the movement of elephant.

28. It is further submitted that the Para 12 of Annexure-1 of the above Notification dated 31.08.2010 clarifies that it does not in any way violate the rights guaranteed under Article 21, 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(g)of the Constitution of India, however, the actions of the Respondents in unreasonably and arbitrarily failing to honor the Petitioner’s request and prohibiting the petitioner’s rights as a patta land holder are clearly in violation of not only the Petitioner’s fundamental rights but also constitutional right to Property under Article 300A. It was submitted that mere notification of the lands as an Elephant Corridor would not take away such entitlements of the Petitioner automatically.
29. It is submitted that in G.O.NO.47 dated 04-06-2008 Environment and Forest Department, the Government of Tamil Nadu passed orders permitting to harvest huge quantities of dead decaying dried bamboos and to sell the same to M/s. Tamil Nadu News Print Papers Limited during the year 2008-09 from Reserve Forest of Gudalur by reason of threat of fire hazard.
30. It is submitted that the Forest Authorities have themselves as parties to sale of similar bamboos as recently as 2008-09 are estopped from taking a different stand when it comes to exercise of such rights by individual in Patta lands.
31. It is further submitted that, in the state of Kerala, permission are being given for cutting and removing thousands of tonnes of similar bamboos every year which is evident from the order No.PRO (4) 4921 /2008 dated 20.08.2012.
32. It is submitted that the constitutional rights of the Petitioner cannot be lightly taken away under the pretext that the Patta land belonging to the petitioner is in the vicinity of Mudumalai Tiger Reserve. It is submitted that major portion of the area adjoining the land now forming part of the Tiger Reserve and national park were originally Revenue Lands utilized for agricultural activities Hence it was prayed to allow the Writ Petition by granting the reliefs prayed for in the interest of justice.
33. On the other hand on behalf of the respondents the learned Additional Advocate General (AAG) for the respondents submitted that the petitioners application dated 27.3.2007 to the Collector of Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam, requesting permission to cut and remove all the silviculturally matured bamboos standing in land in S.Nos.274/1 and 275

(Old.S.Nos.236/1B1 and 212/1A) of Masinagudi village,

Udhagamandalam Taluk, Nilgiris District was forwarded by the Collector of Nilgiris to the District Forest Officer seeking a report on the application, vide Collector’s letter No.C.No.A4/SR 22/2007 dated

03.04.2007.

34. It is submitted that in this regard, the area where the bamboos were standing was inspected by the then District Forest Officer, Gudalur Division and it was observed that the land came under the proposed

Elephant Corridor. Accordingly, a report was sent to the Collector of

Nilgiris stating that the area in question was coming under the proposed

Elephant Corridor and hence vide District Forest Officer’s Ref.No.0/7949/08 dated 16.09.201, it was not recommended for felling of the said bamboos, since the bamboos is a staple food for elephants.

35. It is further submitted that the request of the Forest Range Officer to send the list of silviculturally matured flowered and dead bamboo vide letter dated 16.11.2008 to the petitioner was apparently before the subject area was identified and declared as a Elephant Corridor.
36. It is further submitted that total number of bamboo clumps in Survey No.275 to the extent of 61.85 acres, as per the list provided by the petitioner totally comes to 20,309 bamboo clumps. It is submitted that one clump of bamboo would contain minimum 50 to maximum 80 bamboo shoots and if 60 bamboos shoots per clumps is taken in an average, the total bamboos would be around 12 lakhs.
37. It is submitted that in another Survey No.274/1 to the extent of 45.15 acres in which no list of bamboo clumps were given by the petitioner, if approximately 60% of bamboo clumps of 20,309 bamboos in S.No.275 is taken to calculate the total number of bamboos in Survey No.274/1 then further 7 lakhs bamboos would be added therefore, the petitioner seeks to cut massive number of bamboos shoots summing 19 lakhs in the Masinagudi Village, where almost an extent of 107 acres has been notified as the Elephant Corridor.

38.It is submitted that the petitioner is seeking permission to deforest the private forest which is now forms part of the Elephant Corridor.

39. It is further submitted that petitioners representations between 2007 & 2008 were for permission to cut wildly grown bamboos in the patta land as if they were planted by his grandfather. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner is false and not true. It is submitted that the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner has planted bamboo sampling or took care of raising those bamboos by himself. It is further submitted that there are no supporting materials submitted for his claim of his grandfather planted these bamboos.
40. It is submitted that massive number of bamboos cannot be planted by humans in wild forest 60 years back. Further it was submitted that vast land of the petitioner is still a forest forming part of the elephant habitat which incidentally now comes under the Elephant Corridor based on which the petitioner’s representation to the Collector requesting t cut wildly grown bamboos was turned down by the District Forest Officer dated 16.9.2009, although such a decision was not communicated.
41. It is further submitted that the S.Nos.274/1 and 275 invariably finds a place in the list of Elephant Corridors annexed to the

G.O.Ms.No.125 Environment & Forests (FR.5) Department dated 31.08.2010 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, Madras dated 03.12.2009 in W.P.No.10098 of 2008 to publish the Survey Nos. of the private lands, which fall within the proposed “Elephant Corridor” which was also confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this High Court, vide order dated 07.04.2011 and by the Hon’ble Supreme court vide order dated 14.10.2020 in Civil

Appellate Nos.3438-3439 of 2020 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 1731317314 of 2011.

42. It is further submitted that already the Hon’ble Division Bench of this High Court, vide order dated 07.04.2011 has directed the resort and private land owners to vacate and hand over the land falling within the Elephant Corridor area to the District Collector, Nilgiris within three months of the order and meanwhile, the Government of Tamil Nadu was permitted to go on with the implementation of the project as has been notified in G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010 in the best interest of Wildlife, particularly elephants so as to notify and improve the Elephant Corridor.
43. It is further submitted with regard to the Hon’ble Supreme

Court’s orders in I.A.No.707 of 2002 dated 18.02.2002 in

W.P.(C).No.202/95, it held that no bamboo including cane in National Parks and Sanctuaries can be cut but the same may be cut elsewhere. In this context, it is pertinent to state that the area where the applicant is seeking permission to cut bamboo is not only an Elephant Corridor and a land notified under Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act,1949 where Section 3(2) of the said Act envisages that no person shall without the previous permission of the Committee cut trees or reads or do any act likely to denude therefore or diminish its utility, but also situated in the close vicinity of Mudumalai Tiger Reserve and National Park and, as such, the spirit of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt’s prohibition squarely applies to the subject land, as large scale removal of bamboo would virtually put the wild elephants in great stress leading to serious man – animal conflict. It was further submitted that  it is a “forest” as defined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court In W.P.(C).No.202/95 vide order dated 12.12.1996.

44. It is submitted that the bamboos standing in the Elephant Corridor serve as a good fodder for the wild elephants and already, the man-animal conflict in this region is on the upswing as the wild elephants frequently stay out in search of food following scarcity.
45. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in it’s order dated 12.12.1996 in W.P.(C).No.202 of 1995 specifically banned the removal of spontaneous trees in forest in Taminadu. This bamboo in the petitioner’s patta land was on account of spontaneous growth.
46. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued orders dated 14.09.2007 in I.A.No.1220 in I.A.No.548 and 994 in W.P.(C).No.202/1995 wherein the Court has clearly banned even removal of grass from the Sanctuary and National Park.
47. Admittedly, the area of the petitioner was notified as Elephant Corridor. Thus, removal of grass including bamboo will grossly affect the survival of elephant and other wildlife in this area and also causes interference to movement of elephant in this area which may cause man -animal conflict and will also be against the orders of Hon’ble Supreme

Court.

48. It is submitted that flowering of bamboo is a natural process and it is during this process of flowering, thousands of insects and birds are attracted towards it to feed on the pollen and nectar and flower, the bamboo seeds also act as a feed for many animals including birds including the state bird of Tamil Nadu, the Emerald dove.
49. It is further submitted that death and drying of bamboo is a natural process and the dead bamboo shoots act as a natural cage and carrier for the fresh bamboo sprouts that come up from the seeds that fall inside the bamboo clumps, thus preventing herbivore from eating up the sprouting bamboo and thus this dry bamboo in a natural way helps in bamboo regeneration.
50. It is submitted that this regeneration has been happening generations after generation along the streams and this current generation which flowers and die will further protect and help in the next generation of bamboo that will act as a food for the coming 80 to 90 years for the elephants that will feed and thrive in this landscape.
51. Thus by cutting this bamboo, the regeneration of bamboo in this landscape will be deprived and deny elephants of their staple food but also destroy the natural phenomenon of regeneration.
52. It is submitted that these bamboo clumps act as soil binders and prevents soil erosion. Further bamboo not only acts as natural food to wild animals, it acts as a home to many rodents, reptiles, birds and other night species that thrive in this bamboo forest. It is submitted that it also acts as a sponge absorbing the excess moisture from rainfall and slowly releases it into the streams in the riverine ecosystem of this landscape, these streams in turn drain into the Moyar river that is major tributary of river Bhavani.
53. This mechanism also helps to extend the water availability to the animals due to this sponge action and the resultant slow release. Thus bamboo plays an important part as food and ensure that water is available to animals through the lean summer months by extending the water availability in the streams .Hence taking in to consideration all these facts, in order to prevent deforestation, soil erosion, and also to preserve the special characteristics of this landscape, vegetal cover and climate the permission to cut bamboo was rightly rejected by the authorities concerned.
54. It is further submitted that the Segur Plateau is a landscape that acts as a corridor connecting the Western Ghats and the Eastern Ghats. Many animals big and small including the majestic elephants uses this corridor to migrate from Eastern Ghats to Western Ghats and vice versa. After migrating long distances from as far as Nagerhole tiger reserve in Karnataka, the elephant herds congregate at Bhavani reservoir backwaters and this congregation happens not only for the reason that plenty of water and grass is available to them but more importantly distant herds meet and mating occurs during this period, this ensures that there is gene flow among different populations which is essential for stability of elephant population in this landscape and one of the important food for the elephants especially in dry months when everything dries off is the bamboo in this landscape.
55. It is further submitted that regarding the petitioner’s contention that he had been allowed to cut trees in his land earlier, it is a case of dead individual trees after it had dried and fallen which cannot be compared to the bamboo that grows as a clumps all along the river system and which is under flowering stage now as the flowering bamboo will take another 3 years to completely dry up until then it would act as a source of nectar, pollen and food for insects, birds and animal.
56. It is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court while hearing the

Civil Appeal Nos.3438-3439 of 2020(Arising out of S.L.P. (C)

Nos.17313-17314 of 2011) against the supra mentioned order of this

High Court had observed that: “Articles 21, 47, 48A and 51A (g) of the Constitution of India give a clear mandate to the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.

57. It is further submitted that it is the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures. The precautionary principle makes it mandatory for the State Government to anticipate, prevent and prevent the causes of environmental degradation. It was submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “in order to protect the elephant population in the Segur Plateau region, it was necessary and appropriate for the State Government to limit commercial activity in the areas falling within the Elephant Corridor”.
58. It is submitted that the petitioner’s averment that the matured, flowered and dead bamboo can cause fire was also not tenable, as Forest Department is well prepared to deal with forest fire in general that arises from the boundaries of the patta lands surrounding the Tiger Reserve.
59. It is submitted that during the current fire season, Forest Department in Mudumalai had taken exhaustive steps to prevent fire. These include maintenance of 380 km of fire lines especially in vulnerable areas,strategically placing 60 fire watchers at vantage points to detect and douse fire in the initial stages itself.
60. It is further submitted that as per the section 2(g)of the Tamil Nadu Hill areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955, Bamboo is still a tree and to cut it the permission of the DistrictCommittee is essential and this act applies for whole of the Nilgiris District.
61. It is submitted that the Central Government amended the Indian Forest Act,1927 wherein the word “bamboo has been removed from the category of trees. However, the Objects and Reasons for bringing such amendment given in nutshell is that the bamboos wherever raised as plantation in “NON FOREST AREA” can be cut to transit without any hurdles as and when bamboos are transited in intestate movement by farmers. Therefore, it is clear that despite the Indian Forest Act,1927 omitted the term bamboo from the category of “tree” it is only applicable to bamboos which are planted and raised outside the forest area by farmers to ease the transit. However, exclusive Special Acts of Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act 1949, Tamil Nadu Hill

Areas Preservation of Trees Act 1957 and The Forest Conservation Act 1980 still holds good that the bamboo at this area are kept under the category of “Trees”.

62. It is submitted that in accordance with the relevant legal provisions stated above and the order of the High Court and the Supreme Court the application of the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 was rightly rejected by the committee and that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for as the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition without any legal basis and merits and that contention of the petitioner is against the public interest, welfare of the society, environment and forests.
63. Elephant G. Rajendran was heard as an intervenor in this writ petition. He championed the cause of pachyderm and highlighted the need to protect the natural habitat of elephant and their food namely bamboo. It is submitted that with increase in encroachment of forest area and shrinking of forest cover, the elephants were seen moving into fringe areas nearing the forest resulting in conflict.
64. It is therefore, submitted that thick vegetation of bamboo all along the elephant corridor cannot be allowed to be wiped out to cater to the selfish need of the land owners whose lands form part of the elephant corridor. Though not legal, highlighted the importance of the Bamboo.

Submission of Mr.Elephant G. Rajendran are summarized as follows :-

1. Bamboo plants, with more than 40 million hectares around the world, are one of the most important plants in improving climate change due to the high bamboo biomass stocks and carbon storage. Bamboo can sequester and capture atmospheric carbon within its lifespan, which can offset Carbon-

dioxide emissions by storing high concentrations of Carbon-dioxide in the hollow parts of bamboos.

1. Bamboos, through their phyto remediation potential, can clean up polluted soils and can also accumulate silicon in their bodies to alleviate metal toxicity.
2. Therefore, bamboo is a great recommendation for decreasing the negative effects of climate change and a big sink of carbon in nature, which plays an important role in adjusting and improving human ecosystems.
3. Bamboo plays a protective role in decreasing soil degradation,including the reduction of bio diversity, soil nutrient depletion, and soil erosion.
4. Planting of bamboo is one of the best ways to help our environment. Bamboo is a crucial element in the balance of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A grove of bamboo release 35% more oxygen than an equivalent stand of trees. Because of this, planting bamboo is a great way to reduce the carbon footprint and help fight global warming.
5. It is a great soil conservation tool. It greatly reduces erosion with a sum of stem flow rate and canopy intercept of 25%. This dramatically reduces rain run-off, preventing massive soil erosion and making it very earth friendly.
6. It was actually the only first plant to re-green after the atomic blast in Hiroshima in 1945.
7. There are thousands and thousands acres of bamboo in China, throughout the world in areas such as China, Japan, and India, bamboo has been and is one of the most important plants in history.
8. Only 3 plants which releasing oxygen namely Bamboos, Thulasi and Arasamaram. That is why in the villages Bamboo is planted in backyard of the houses.
9. In the Nilgiris forest more than 50 millions Bamboo are available. It eats the carbondioxide and release more than 35% oxygen, to the human being. Therefore cutting of bamboos is nothing but to bring disaster to the human and to the environment and animal.
10. Apart from cleaning the atmosphere and maintaining the Ozone Layers, the forest bamboo acts as food to the birds reptiles, animals.
11. Bamboo grow spontaneously on the elevation of the forest and does not require the maintenance like other plants such as tea and coffee plants etc.,
12. Foreign-pollination is done by millions of insects which eat the honey in the flowers of bamboos.
13. Bamboo seeds is the source of food to birds reptiles, deer and other animals including Tribal’s.
14. There is a sure chance of starvation deaths of birds and other animals, if the forest bamboos are allowed to be removed.
15. Bamboo maintain soil conservation, protects land sliding and soil erosion.
16. Bamboo is the favorite food for elephants. Elephants food preference is bamboos, banana and sugar cane.
17. Bamboos is a good hiding place for Tiger, Elephant and also it is a hiding place for bear and civet cat. If the bamboos are removed definitely there will be chance for human and animal conflicts.
18. Hence removing the bamboos would definitely leads to the starvation of the elephants.
19. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent. There is a chequered history to the present case. Several State and Central enactments inter play with each other apart from several decisions of this Court and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
20. The petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of 107 acres (43.31.00 Hectares) of land in S.Nos.274/1 & 275 in Udhagamandalam Taluk, Masinagudi Village, Nilgiris District. The dispute in the present writ petition is confined to the aforesaid  land in

Masinagudi Village as detailed below:-

S.No. seeking permission to cut bamboo		Extent in Hectares(as per chitta)	Extent in Acres	1981 Notification under TNPFF Act 1949 (in acres)	1991 Notification under TNPFF Act 1949  (in acres)	GO.MS.NO125 -Declaring “EC”(in hectares)	Place
Old	New
12/1A	274/1	18.19	45.15	Singara Estate	Entry 137	Entry 179	Masinagudi village, Udhagaman dalam, Nilgiris
					Entry 151	Entry 181
236/1B1	275	25.12	62.02

67. The petitioner filed an application dated 27.03.2007 under Section 3(2) of the Tamilnadu Preservation of Private Forest Act,1949 with the 1^st respondent, the Collector of Nilgiris District for permission to cut silviculturally matured, flowered and dead bamboo in the aforesaid 2 survey Nos. However, no permission was granted. Hence this Writ Petition.
68. The land in question was earlier notified as a private forest for the purpose of Tamilnadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949 by the State Government vide notification dated 01.10.1981 published by the Nilgiris District Gazette No.9 at Page No.32 under Section 1(2)(iii) of the Tamilnadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949.
69. The petitioner along with his father and his relatives had therefore filed W.P.No.17943/1990 for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Collector of Nilgiris relating to the said notification dated 01.10.1981 published by the Nilgiris District Gazette No.9 at Page No.32 and to quash the same and to further direct the respondents therein to desist from invoking the provisions of the Tamilnadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 in respect of these lands and trees thereon which were said to be notified and registered as coffee plantation.
70. The petitioners therein claimed that they are joint owners of land in S.No.236/8A etc., which included the subject lands in S.No.274/1 and 275 in Udhagamandalam Taluk, Masinagudi Village, Nilgiris

District comprising of 883.6 acres.

71. The petitioners therein challenged the validity of the aforesaid notification dated 01.10 1981 on the ground that the lands were ryotwari land and ryotwari patta were issued to the petitioners therein having acquired the same under a will effected by the father of the first petitioner therein (grandfather of the other petitioners) and that pattas were granted to the land as early as 1885 to the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners which had been later transferred and issued in the name of all the petitioners therein.
72. There, it was stated that a major portion of the land was used for raising coffee plantation apart from pepper plantation, fruit orchards etc. It was also the case of the petitioners therein that the petitioners had also planted shade trees for the purpose of aforesaid coffee plantations to provide adequate shade for the coffee plants.
73. The challenge to the notification dated 01.10.1981 published by the Nilgiris District Gazette No.9 at Page No.32 was on the ground that before bringing the entire extent of 883.6 acres of land under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949 under Section 1 (2)(iii) of the said Act, no notice was issued to the petitioners therein and therefore, the notification was liable to be quashed.
74. The said Writ Petition came to be disposed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 03.06.1999. The Court in its order dated 03.06.1999 in W.P.No.17943 of 1990, held as under :-

“8. Having seen the entire material available on record and from the claims and counter claims made by the parties herein, it is clear that the petitioners herein are aggrieved by the impugned notification dated 1.10.1981. By virtue of the said notification, the lands in question viz., were declared as private forest and that they are forests for the purpose of the said Act. Their main grievance is that no notice or opportunity had been given by the second respondent before issuing the impugned notification under Section 1(2)(iii) of the Act, that their coffee plantations have been registered under the coffee Act and they contain bungalows, quarters etc., and the declaration of such lands as forests under Section 1(1)(iii) of the Act is absolutely illegal and liable to be set aside. Interalia also they contend that while as owner they have the right not only to own the property to raise plantation and trees and enjoy the usufruct timbers and other wealth of the plantation as full and absolute owner and this right is taken away when once a notification under Section 1(2)(iii) is issued. Whereas it is the contentions of the respondents that the act is not prohibitory in nature but is only preventive in nature and therefore the petitioners can apply to the competitive authorities for permission to cut and remove the trees and there is absolutely no denial of any rights of the petitioner to carry out any improvements which would not amount to denude the forest.  It is also the categoric contention of the respondents that all the formalities with regard to the notification were dealt with by the father of the petitioner and also that it is not mandatory on the part of the respondents to issue any prior notice to the petitioner before the notification and the notification was issued only as per the provisions of the Act and therefore the notification is absolutely valid. It is signification is absolutely valid. It is significant to note that to preserve the Private Forest wealth and to prevent the indiscriminate destruction of Private Forest and interference with customary and prescriptive rights therein, the Government of Tamil Nadu had enacted the Preservation of Private Forest Act.  Further, it is also the case of the respondents that the act is not prohibitory in nature and is only preventive in nature and therefore the petitioners can apply to the competent authorities for permission to cut and remove the trees. Therefore, it is very clear that there is absolutely no denial of any rights of the petitioner to carry out any improvements which would not amount to denude the forest. That being so the petitioners cannot have any grievance over the same. Therefore, as rightly contended by the respondents the petitioner can get permission from the committee to cut the trees which are silviculturally matured and obtaining permission for cutting of trees will not amount to violation of any fundamental rights as alleged. It is significant to note that the purpose and object of the act is only to preserve the private forest and to prevent indiscriminate destruction of the forest in the larger interest of nation and that therefore even though the lands are their own private lands, they cannot be permitted to violate the provisions of the Act. It is also significant to note that the petitioners can always get permission from the committee to cut the trees which are silviculturally matured. Thus, when the position this much clear, there is no reason at all for the petitioner to have any grievance over the impugned notification and that therefore all the contentions raised by the petitioners herein challenging the impugned notification fail and are hereby rejected.

9. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of this case and also in view of my above discussions with regard to the various aspects of this case, I am of the clear view that the petitioners herein have failed to make out any case in their favour and that there is no need for any interference with the notification impugned in this writ petition. Thus, the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed for want of merits.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.”

75. Thus, the right to cut the trees/bamboos whether silviculturally matured or grown spontaneously stood preserved under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act 1949 to the petitioners therein. Such permission were to be granted by a Committee constituted under Section 2A of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act 1949, as defined in Section 2(a) of the said Act.
76. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed to  protect the forest lands in the Nilgiris District of the of Tamil Nadu.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India and Others, (1997) 2 SCC 267 passed orders and gave certain directions.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court had subsequently enlarged the scope of case to protect such natural resources throughout the country.
77. The Hon’ble Supreme Court first gave certain directions on 12.12.1996 against felling of trees in forest areas to protect and conserve forest and wildlife. As far as State of Tamilnadu was concerned, it held that there will be a complete ban on felling of trees in all forest areas. It however, identified two exceptions, namely, trees which have been planted and grown and are not of spontaneous growth, and are in areas which were not forests earlier, but were cleared for any reason..
78. Relevant portion of the order dated 12.12.1996 of the Honb’le Supreme Court in Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India and Others, (1997) 2 SCC 267 reads as under:-
79. Each State Government should constitute within one month an Expert Committee to:
    • Identify areas which are “forests”, irrespective of whether they are so notified, recognised or classified under any law, and irrespective of the ownership of the land of such forest;
    • identify areas which were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared; and
    • identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the Government and those belonging to private persons.
80. The Expert Committee so constituted should be requested to give its report within one month of being constituted.
81. Each State Government would constitute a

Committee comprising of the Principal Chief

Conservator of Forests and another Senior

Officer to oversee the compliance of this order and file status reports.

1. FOR THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

1. There will be a complete ban on felling of trees in all “forest areas”. This will however not apply to:
   • trees which have been planted and grown, and are not of spontaneous growth, and
   • are in areas which were not forests earlier, but were cleared for any reason.
2. The State Government, within four weeks from today, is to constitute a committee for identifying all “forests”.

….

7. This order is to operate and to be implemented, notwithstanding any order at variance, made or which may be made by any Government or any authority, Tribunal or court, including the High Court.

The earlier orders made in these matters shall be read, modified wherever necessary to this extent. This order is to continue, until further orders. This order will operate and be complied with by all concerned, notwithstanding any order at variance, made or which may be made hereafter, by any authority, including the Central or any State Government or any court (including High Court) or Tribunal.

79. There was however no specific reference to bamboo in theabove said order. The above order is long back before the other orders of this Court came to be passed which led to issue of G.O.M.S.No.125 dated 31.08.2010 of the Forest Department and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated 14.10.2020.
80. Pursuant to the above decision of the Honb’le Supreme Court reported in Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India and Others, (1997) 2 SCC 276 dated 12.12.1996 , the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.15, Environment and Forest(FR.III)

Department dated 20.01.1997. It constituted two committees:-

• Committee to identify forests in accordance with the para 5 of the General Direction of the Order,
• Committee to assess aspects related to saw mills and timber industry in accordance with para 7 of the General Direction of the Order.

81. Another Committee was constituted to oversee the compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and to file a status report in compliance with para 9 of the General Direction of the Order. This Committee was responsible to oversee the total implementation of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and to coordinate the working of the other two Committees. The Committee was also required to furnish a report as required by the Supreme Court in para 6 of the General Directions which in turn was to be furnished to the Supreme Court.
82. All the District Forest Officers, Conservator of Forest.

Managing Directors of Various Corporations under the Forest Department, District Collectors and Superintendents of Police were directed to render all necessary assistance and help, if so required, by the Members of the Committees so constituted. They were directed to ensure the proper implementation of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and to bring to the notice of the Government of any difficulty in the process.

83. Pursuant to the above directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.1996 in Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India and Others, (1997) 2 SCC 267, the Expert Committee constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.15. Environment and Forest Department dated 20.1.1997, headed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, along with Conservator of Forest and Joint Commissioner of land Administration identified the lands based on the following criteria:-
    1. Forest
    2. Areas which were earlier forest, but stand, degraded, denuded,or cleared, and
    3. Areas covered by plantation trees, belonging to Government and to individuals.
84. In Para 7 of the Expert Committee Report, it was stated that in Tamil Nadu, several enactments provide protection of forest and trees such as:-
    • The Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882.
    • Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act,1949.

(iii)The Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversion into ryotwari) Act, 1963.

• The Inam Estate Abolition Act 26 Of 1963.
• The Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and conversion into ryotwari) Act 1969.
• The Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation Of Trees)Act 1955

(vii)The Forest Conservation Act 1980

(viii)The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (FCL)Act 1961

85. The Expert Committee in Annexure 2 of its report has given a statement of the areas identified as forest under the private ownership. In Annexure 5 the Expert Committee has given a statement of the plantations of commercial crops under private ownership. As per Annexure 2 in Singara, Masinagudi, Udhagamandalam Taluk the extent of land identified was only 34.94 hectares which is equivalent to 86.33 acres. As per Annexure 5, the statement of plantation of commercial crops and private ownership in Nilgiris was also identified as nil.
86. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 14.02.2000, further passed an interim order in the above case. Relevant portion of the said order reads as under :-

2.An application has been filed through the amicus curiae in court, inter alia, praying for clarification that the order dated 12-12-1996 contained a ban against the removal of any fallen trees or removal of any diseased or dry standing tree from the areas notified under Section 18 or 35 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Let the same be taken on record.

3.Issue notice to all the respondents. In the meantime, we restrain Respondents 2 to 32 from ordering the removal of dead, diseased, dying or wind-fallen trees, driftwood and grasses etc. from any national park or game sanctuary or forest. If any order to this effect has already been passed by any of the respondent States, the operation of the same shall stand immediately stayed.

87. In the same case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, later vide its order dated 18.02.2002 in I.A.No.707 of 2002 clarified as under:-

“It is clarified that the order of this Court prohibiting cutting of trees does not apply to bamboos including cane, which really belongs to the grass family, other than those in the national parks and sanctuaries. In other words, no bamboos including cane in national parks and sanctuaries can be cut but the same may be cut elsewhere”

88. Later, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated

14.09.2007 in I.A.No.1220 in I.A.NO.548 & 994 in W.P.(C)

No.202/1995 further clarified its earlier order dated 14.02.2000 based on the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) Report, permitting certain activities that can be be done in the forest though they did not come within the purview of Order passed on 14.2.2000. Relevant portion of the order dated 14.09.2007 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as under:-

“The CEC has filed an interim report wherein it has

stated that this Court passed an order dated 14.2.2000 by which certain activities were expressly prohibited and that included:

(i) felling of trees and their removal;

(ii)removal of bamboo or grasses for any purpose;

(iii)removal of corals and other living forms from marine National parks/sanctuaries;

(iv)construction of tourist complexes,hotels restaurants,zoos and safari parks or any other building not for direct use for protection and management of wildlife and its habitat; and other non-forest activities”.

But it was not specifically stated as to what permitted activities could be done in the forest which may not have any commercial concern. In the CEC report it has been stated that the removal of weeds, clearing and burning of vegetation for fire lines, maintenance of fair weather roads, habitat improvement, digging, temporary water holes,construction of antipoaching camps, chowkies, check posts etc. may be essential for maintenance of forests and for the prohibition and supervision of the forests for the Forest Department. We permit all these activities to be done though they do not come within the purpose of Order passed on

14.2.2000.”

89. Thus, there was no embargo on the petitioners from felling or cutting of trees and grass. Similarly, there was no embargo on the officials from the Forest Department to remove weeds, clearing and burning of vegetation for fire lines, maintenance of fair weather roads, habitat improvement, digging, temporary water holes,construction of anti-poaching camps, chowkies, check posts etc., for the above specified purpose essential for maintenance of forests under the supervision of the Forest Department.
90. Meanwhile, the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 03.06.1999 in W.P.No.17943 of 1990 was challenged by the petitioners therein before the Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.1593 of 1999 The Division Bench of this Court rendered its decision on 26.11.2007 reported in Mangalchand Vaid and Ors. Vs. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, 2008 (1) MLJ 476 .
91. One of the contentions of the Appellants therein before the Division Bench of this Court was that Notification No.G.O.Ms.1225 dated 1.12.1985 had been issued subsequently under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hills Area (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 and therefore the previous notification dated 01.10.1981 impugned in W.P.No.17943 of 1990 issued under Section 1(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 was liable to be withdrawn.
92. The writ appeal filed by the petitioners therein (which included the petitioner herein) in the said writ petition, was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on 26.11.2007 with the following observations:-
93. There is no denial or quarrel with regard to the well established principle of law that the provisions of any Special Act would prevail over the general Act. But, in the case on hand, nowhere in the Hill Act it has been mentioned that it is in supercession of any of the Acts in existence particularly, Act XXVII of 1949. Therefore, the Hill Act would be an Act in addition but not in derogation or in supercession or in exclusion of Act XXVII of 1949, so as to say that the Hill Act, being a Special Act, would have overriding effect on a general Act like Act XXVII of 1949. Therefore, the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Sri Athmanathaswami Devasthanam v. K. Gopalaswami Aiyangar 1963 (3) SCR 763, which was delivered in the context of the permanent lease right of occupancy of a ryot regarding waste lands brought under cultivation, relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, also does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. Further more, as has already been held supra, the Hill Areas Act has been made applicable to Nilgiris District long after the impugned notification, by G.O.Ms.No.1225, dated 1.12.1985.

….

20.Further more, the above judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court, though not binding on this Bench, would have only a persuasive value and the same could very well be distinguished on facts, since in that case, there was already a declaration under Section 63 of the Abolition Act, which has become final and binding on the parties, that it is not a ‘forest’ within the meaning of Estates Land Act, which situation is absent in the case on hand. Further, in the light of the categorical directions issued by the Honourable Apex Court, extracted supra, the other judgments rendered contra by the lower forums of law, would get diluted/nullified. Therefore, the judgment of the learned single Judge, relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellant has no application to the case on hand.

21. The other point urged on the part of the appellants is that the impugned notification is liable to be quashed for the reason that it has been published not in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, as required, but in the Nilgiris District Gazette alone. This argument cannot be accepted since as per Section 2(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949, the notification is required to be issued only in the District Gazette, which has been perfectly complied with by the respondents.
22. The other argument advanced on the part of the appellants is that as per the Amended Act 68 of 1979, the power to issue a notification vests only with the Committee constituted under Section 2-A of the Private Forests Act and therefore, the notification issued by the District Collector is bad in law.
23. At this juncture, it is to be mentioned that the District Collector is the Chairman of the Committees constituted both under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act and the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act. Therefore, even if the notification is issued by the District Collector, but not by the Committee headed by him, it could only be treated as an irregularity and definitely not an illegality. It is now a well established principle of law that such irregularities will not vitiate the entire proceedings, since no prejudice has been caused to the land owners.
24. It is to be mentioned that the provisions of both the Acts are only regulatory and preventive in nature to prevent the indiscriminate destruction of the forests and the procedure contemplated is also very lucid and in case there is any rhyme or reason for the land owners to remove the shade trees which are fully grown and which get silviculturally matured, they could very well approach the Committees constituted for permission and no case of any arbitrariness or discrimination adopted on the part of the said Committees has been brought to our notice.
25. A social responsibility is cast on every individual to prevent deforestation. The laudable and lucid laws enacted to preserve Mother Nature intact for the welfare of the Society and future generations, like the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949, should be strictly adhered to, lest, the repercussions would be very serious affecting the ecological balance, leading to destruction and chaos.
26. The learned single Judge has considered all thefacts and circumstances of the case in their proper perspective and has arrived at an irresistible conclusion of dismissing the claim of the appellants herein. For all the above discussions, we also find no ground to cause our interference into the well considered and merited order passed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
    93. Thus, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court also re-echoed the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
    94. The facts on record indicate that against the above order passed by the Division bench of this Court reported in 2008(1) MLJ 476, no further appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
    95. Meanwhile, an organisation named ‘In Defence of Environment and Animals’ represented by its Managing Trustee Elephant’ G. Rajendran, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in W.P.No.10098 of 2008 for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to keep the corridor of the animal without any encroachment and any other disturbances for the free movement of elephants and other animals in the District of Nilgiris.
    96. The Managing Trustee of ‘In Defence of Environment and Animals’, Mr.Elephant G. Rajendran is here before this Court in the present Writ Petition as an intervenor and has opposed to the prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition. Though the Managing Trustee of the Trust Elephant G. Rajendran wanted to implead himself in this writ petition, it was felt he could be heard as an intervenor. He has filed a affidavit. Summary of his contentions have been extracted in this order.
    97. The Honorable Division Bench of this court passed the following directions on 09.2009 in W.P.No.10098 of 200:-.
    98. After hearing the parties, prima facie, it appears that the following procedure may required to be followed:

“(i) Forest Department, which has the knowledge of movement of elephant in the corridor, may identify and inform the same;

• the State Government may publish the information regarding the Elephant Corridor and the area, in leading newspapers and also by drum beating/tom tom, calling for objections of locals, if any, in the area in question;
• after hearing the locals, particularly those

who may be affected, they may finalize the

Elephant                                          Corridor                                                from                                              which

unauthorized occupants are to be evicted;

• to ensure that schedule tribes and other forest traditional dwellers are not affected, it is required to identify the other traditional forest dwellers in terms with Schedule Tribes and other

Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Tribes) Rules, 2007;

• only after the recommendation and recording their names in the appropriate register, they may proceed with eviction, by giving notice in the newspaper, by drum beating/tom tom and by giving individual notice to the unauthorised occupants.

5.So far as the acquisition of the land is concerned, if any private land is required to be acquired, they will have to follow the procedure under the Land

Acquisition Act. Prima facie, as the tribals and other forest dwellers cannot be evicted from the unauthorized lands, their lands need not required to be acquired, if it is a forest land. Learned counsel for the parties are requested to give further suggestion in the matter, in the interest of public and elephants.”

98. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court felt that it was necessary that a team of experts of the Environment and Forest Department be constituted to identify the Elephant Corridor and should submit a report after taking into consideration different books published with regard to Elephant Corridors.
99. In pursuance of the directions of the Hon’ble Division

Bench of this Court, an Expert Committee was constituted by the State

Government. The Expert Committee is said to have visited the Elephant Corridor area in the Nilgiris twice, enquired with the field officers and tribals of the area and obtained opinions from experts before submitting their report on 04.11.2009.

100. A map of the Elephant Corridor in the Sigur Plateau in

Nilgiris region was also filed by the said expert Committee before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. Noting that the State Government was responsible for notifying Elephant Corridors within its territory, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on 03.12.2009 directed the State Government to choose one of the maps for the Elephant Corridor out of either the one identified by the Expert Committee or the one identified by the Wildlife Trust of India’s publication “Right of Passage – Elephant Corridors of India”, which was referred to in the Central Government’s letter dated 11.08.2006 to the State Government of Tamilnadu. This order also directed the State Government to file an affidavit disclosing the actions it intended to take against resort owners and residents of the Elephant Corridor.

101. In accordance with the High Court’s directions, the State Government came forward with a decision that it will ensure that no illegal construction will take place in the area shown as ‘Elephant Corridor’ in the report of the Expert Committee and that no person will be allowed to put up fresh solar/electrical fencing within the proposed area of the Elephant Corridor. Taking into account the materials on record, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court passed a fresh order dated 03.12.2009 as under:
102. So far as the publication of map for the Elephant Corridor is concerned, if the authorities have prepared or will finalise on the basis of the Expert committees report,in terms of the earlier orders of this court, we pass the following order:

(i) The State Government will have to decide as to which Elephant

Corridor has to be identified, i.e. corridor identified by the Central Government in the letter dated

11.8.2006, with the help of the

State Forest Department and

NGOs, or the proposed Elephant

Corridor as identified by the Expert Committee in the present cases, preferably within one month.

(ii)The publication of such map showing the Elephant Corridor, should be made by the State through the Forest Department, in two local newspapers, one in English and another in vernacular

Tamil, giving the details of Survey Numbers of private lands which are falling within the proposed Elephant Corridor. The persons may be asked to submit their objection within a time frame, say one month.

• The intimation of such proposed Elephant Corridor along with a copy of the report of the Expert Committee, should be also forwarded to each local

Panchayats, which fall within the proposed Elephant Corridor, so that the local persons can have the knowledge of the corridor of their own, if they so choose.

• No separate individual hearing is required to be given to any person, though a mass bearing may be given as generally given in the ‘ land Acquisition ‘ cases and on hearing such objections, the proposed Elephant Corridor including the map containing the different Survey Numbers should be finalised and be also published at an early date, say maximum within six months.
• No individual or any Association generally should intervene in the case. If they have any objection, they may raise before the

authorities concerned. ”

23. On such finalisation, it will be open for the State to decide:

(a)whether the private lands which are falling within the Elephant Corridor, do not belong to

Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, who have a right under the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers

(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and whether such lands should be acquired. If the decision is taken to acquire the lands, they will follow the regular procedures as laid down under the provisions of the.

(b)If the State Government, in the meantime, wants to take over the management of the private forest, it may do so in terms of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Private Forests (Assumption of Management) Act (53 of 1972), so as to enable the elephants to pass through the corridor without any hindrance till the lands are acquired. ”

102. Private lands that stand in the name of the petitioner have neither been taken over under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Private Forests (Assumption of Management) Act (53 of 1972) nor acquired by the government.
103. Although the private lands stand in the name of the petitioner, on the strength of pattas allegedly granted to the petitioner’s grandfather’s vendors and later to the petitioner’s grandfather and thereafter to the petitioner, the petitioner is unable to exploit the forest produce, as no permission has been granted to the petitioner under Section 3(2) of Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949 as the land has been notified as form part of the Elephant Corridor.
104. The State Government may therefore take steps to acquire these lands. While awarding quantum of compensation, the State Government may re-examine the basis on which Ryotwari pattas for such huge track of forest land, were issued to the petitioner’s grandfather’s vendor’s and others.
105. Similar, exercise shall be carried out for others also who hold pattas over the land which come under the purview of lands identified as Elephant Corridor. If the lands were to begin with a forest land, it has to be re-looked how ryotwari pattas were granted before these lands were notified as a “private forest” in the year 1981 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act ,1949.
106. Meanwhile, order dated 03.12.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.10098 of 2008 was challenged by the aggrieved respondents therein before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 14416–14422 of 2010 .
107. The Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 14416–14422 of 2010 vide its order dated 30.04.2010 with the following observations:

“Permission to file special leave petitions is

granted.

Delay condoned.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no.1.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if proposed Elephant Corridors established, the petitioner would be seriously effected as his land falls in that area.

The petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Committee which is likely to finalize the Elephant Corridors and also would be at liberty to approach the High Court and seek intervention proceedings though the division Bench has already indicated under other proceeding that no intervention is allowed.

With the above directions, the special leave petitions are disposed of.”

108. Meanwhile, pursuance to the directions dated 03.12.2009 of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, the State Forest Department issued a Public Notice dated 07.01.2010. Public Notice proposed to notify the proposed Elephant Corridor, as identified by the Expert Committee. It required the persons whose private lands fell within the proposed Elephant Corridor to submit their objections. Public hearings were also held by the authorities concerned and the objections raised by various persons in four Villages viz., sholur, Masinagudi, Hullasthi and

Kadanadu, who were likely to be affected by the proposed Elephant Corridor were considered. A public hearings was held on 08.02.2010. After verifying all the objections the State Government issued the G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010 through Forest Department.

109. O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010 confirmed the Elephant Corridor map as published on 07.01.2010. It also specified the boundaries of the Elephant Corridor and the Survey Nos falling within the said Corridor. Relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.125 Environment and

Forest Department  dated 31.08.2010 read as under:-

10.All the objections were examined, thoroughly. It has been ensured that the intention of the Government is to notify the corridor for a safe and undisturbed passage of elephants so that their genetic dispersal could be ensured for long survival. The Elephant Corridor has to be necessarily notified as a management activity on the part of Forest Department without infringing on the Rights of the people living in the Corridor. Further, as per the instruction of the Government of India to identify, demarcate and protect and conserve the Elephant Corridors in each and every State, concerted action has to be taken to notify the Elephant Corridor. The Hon’ble High Court has also issued directions to consider the representations and objections filed by the Public and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

“11. The Government have carefully and independently examined all the representations and objections made by the public along with the expert committee report and the original record with the relevant act and rules in detail and considered that all the representations and objections made by the applicants are without merit. The Government therefore, rejected the petitions and objections made by the public against the formation of Elephant Corridor. 12 The Government also confirm the Elephant Corridor map published in two local dailies one in english (i.e.) “The Hindu” and the other vernacular (i.e.) tamil “Dinathanthi” respectively on 6.1.2010 and 7.1.2010 in 12 compliance with the orders of this Court, dated 3.12.2009. in W.P.No.10098 of 2008. The lands falling within the boundary description form the Elephant Corridor.

13 The Government direct the Principal Chief

Conservator of Forest to publish the final Elephant Corridor in the cadastral map prepared by the expert Committee along with the survey numbers of the private lands which are falling within the proposed Elephant Corridor. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest is also directed to communicate the Government orders to all the petitioners.

110. Several writ petitions were filed before this High Court challenging the G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010 of the Forest Department. These Writ Petitions were clubbed with the other pending writ petitions and PIL and came to be disposed by a Hon’ble Division Bench of this High Court vide its common order dated 07.04.2011 which includes W.P.No.10098 of 2008 and host of Writ Petitions challenging G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010, formation of the Expert Committee and the report filed by them and the Public Notice dated 07.01.2010 issued by the Forest Department to elicit the views of the persons who were likely to be affected by the Elephant Corridor.
111. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this High Court vide its order dated 07.04.2011 rejected the contentions of the petitioners therein challenging the propriety of constitution of an Expert Committee given that the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (‘Wildlife Act’) did not envisage the same and rather provides for constitution of State and National Boards for Wildlife. The Court in its order dated 07.04.2011 held that the

Expert Committee’s mandate did not infringe upon that of the National Boards under the Wildlife(protection)Act,1972.

112. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this High Court also did not

find any merit in the contention of the petitioners therein that the State

Government lacked the power to notify Elephant Corridor. The Hon’ble

Division Bench of this High Court relied upon Entries 17A ‘Forest’ and

17B ‘Protection of wild animals and birds’ in the Concurrent List in

Seventh Schedule to The Constitution of India and the power of the State

Government to notify Sanctuaries, National Parks, Conservation Reserves and Community Reserves under Chapter IV of the Wildlife Act.

113. Before the High Court, the petitioners therein had also contended that the G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 31.08.2010 sought to create an “artificial corridor” in an area through which elephants do not traditionally pass. While rejecting this contention, the Division Bench of this High Court in its order dated 07.04.2011 also held that the material on record clinchingly showed that the animals were already moving through the said area.
114. The Division Bench of this High Court further observed that the petitioners therein and others have constructed Holiday Resorts and were carrying on commercial activities in the area despite holding permissions only for construction of dwelling houses. The mushrooming of such resorts, which were bounded by electric fencing and barbed wires, had severally restricted the movement of elephants and caused an increase in incidents of human-elephant conflict. The Hon’ble Division

Bench of this High Court thus passed the following directions:-

“The resort owners and other private land owners are directed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the lands falling within the notified ‘Elephant Corridor’ to the District Collector, Nilgiris within three months from today.

In the meanwhile, the Government of Tamil Nadu is permitted to go on with the implementation of the project as has been notified in G.O.M.s.No.125, dated 31.08.2010, in the best interest of the wildlife, particularly elephants so as to notify and improve the Elephant Corridor. With regard to the forest dwellers, whose interests are protected under the provisions of Schedule Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, the State Government is directed to strictly adhere to and comply with the provisions of this Act while dealing with the forest dwellers, who fall within the ambit of this Act and if any forest dweller is evicted from and out of the identified elephant corridor, they be provided with the best alternate and suitable accommodation. For the forest dwellers, who deny such alternate and suitable accommodation may be provided with the compensation, as per the procedure contemplated under law. While dealing with the forest dwellers, the State Government is directed to strictly adhere to the various orders passed by this Court in these manners; the terms of G.O. Ms.No.125, dated 31.8.2010 and the assertions made by them before this Court, as has been narrated by us in the preceding paragraphs.

115. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this High Court also directed the State to strictly adhere with the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and in case any forest dwellers are evicted from the Elephant Corridor, they be provided alternate accommodation or compensation as per the procedure contemplated under law.
116. Review Application No.157 of 2011 filed against the above decision of the High Court dated 07.04.2011 was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this High Court vide its order dated 16.11.2011 on the ground that the judgement was a well reasoned order which did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record.
117. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court referred to supra dated 07.04.2011 in W.P.No.10098 of 2008 and Batch was appealed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.34383439 of 2020 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.17313-17314 of 2011). The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 12.07.2018 has issued the following directions to the District Collector, The Nilgiris.

“We have been informed that there are large scale constructions going on in the Elephant Corridors in the State of TamilNadu. We make it clear that, no construction is permitted in the Elephant Corridors in Tamil Nadu. In fact, we direct the Collector of the Nilgiris to prepare a plan of action on how to identify the constructions that have been made, when they have been made and for what purpose the constructions are being utilized. The plan of action should be with respect to the Elephant Corridors as mentioned in the Report of the

Elephant Task Force titled

“Gajah as well as the area described as

“Elephant Corridors”

118. Based on the above order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the then District Collector has submitted a detailed plan of action report comprising the constructions made in the Elephant Corridor area before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
119. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14.10.2020 disposed Civil Appeals Nos.3438-3439 of 2020 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.17313-17314 of 2011) by appointing a 3-member Inquiry Committee consisting of:
     • Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Venkatraman,

Former Judge of this High Court as Chairman;

• Ajay Desai, Consultant to World Wide

Fund for Nature-India and Member of the

Technical Committee to come up with a National Elephant Action Plan (NEAP), constituted by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEF&CC); and

• Praveen Bhargava, Trustee of Wildlife First and Former Member of National Board for Wildlife.

120. The 3-member Inquiry Committee was appointed to decide the individual objections of the appellants therein and any other persons claiming to be aggrieved by the actions of the District Collector, Nilgiris pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.125, dated 31.08.2010 and as recorded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court through the District Collector’s Plan of Action Report and twin Action Taken Reports, as also the allegations regarding arbitrary variance in acreage of the Elephant Corridor under the G.O.Ms.No.125, dated 31.08.2010.
121. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also directed the State Government to consult the Chairman of the Inquiry Committee and pay remuneration to the Chairman and the other Members of the Inquiry Committee and to provide appropriate secretarial assistance and logistical support to the Inquiry Committee for holding the inquiry within four weeks from the date of the order.
122. The Hon’ble Supreme Court authorized the Inquiry Committee to decide the location for its inquiry proceedings. The persons claiming to be aggrieved by the plan of action/actions of the District Collector, Nilgiris pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.125, dated 31.08.2010. and the allegations regarding the variance in acreage under the G.O.Ms.No.125, dated 31.08.2010, were permitted to file objections containing their grievances before the Inquiry Committee within a period of four months from the date of order.  The Inquiry Committee was directed to consider the objections filed before it and pass appropriate orders thereon after granting the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The parties were also permitted to file documents in support of their respective contentions before the Inquiry Committee.
123. Relevant portion of the order dated 14.10.2020 of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court reads as under:-

38.Conflicting maps of this corridor were presented before the Madras High Court, which thus directed the State Government to choose between: (i) the Elephant Corridors identified in the Wildlife Trust of India’s book titled “Right of Passage – Elephant Corridors of

India” which were referred to by the Central Government in its letter dated 11.08.2006 to the State Government; or (ii) the single Elephant Corridor identified by the Expert Committee appointed by the High Court. As per the aforesaid book titled “Right of Passage”, the following 4 corridors lie in the

Sigur Plateau region: (i) Avarahalla – Sigur, (ii)

Kalhatti Sigur at Glencorin, (iii) Moyar –

Avarahalla and (iv) Kalmalai – Singara and Avarahalla. The Expert Committee examined all the Elephant Corridors in the area and identified a single Elephant Corridor comprising of various Elephant Corridors in the Sigur Plateau region. The State

Government, vide the impugned G.O., notified this single Elephant Corridor, along the lines of the recommendations made by the Expert Committee.

39. The first limb of the appellants’ contentions before us is that there is no statutory power for creating/recognition of new corridors by the State Government. We do not find merit in this argument and, in principle, are in agreement with the findings of the High Court regarding the power of the State Government to take measures, including issuance of the impugned G.O., for protection of wildlife in Tamil Nadu. It is undeniable that the State Government is empowered to take measures to protect forests and wildlife falling within its territory in light of Entries 17A ‘Forest’ and 17B ‘Protection of wild animals and birds’ in the concurrent list and the power of the State Government under the Wildlife Act to notify Sanctuaries and other protected areas. It is an admitted position that the land of the appellants has also been notified as private forest in 1991 under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949, which prohibits cutting of trees in private forests. Our attention has also been drawn to the decision of this Court wherein felling of trees in the state of Tamil Nadu was prohibited in all forests, including forests situated in privately owned lands. The contesting respondents have argued that the construction of the appellants’ resorts must have necessarily run afoul of the above decision of this Court. Without commenting on the factual accuracy of

this assertion, given that the classification of the appellants’ land as private forest land is not in dispute here, we find no difficulty in holding that the State Government was empowered to protect the habitats situated on the appellants’ land by notifying an Elephant Corridor thereupon.

40. Furthermore, since the impugned decision of the High Court, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change vide its Notification S.O. 4498(E) dated 13.12.2019 has declared the entire area in question and adjoining areas around the Mudumalai Tiger Reserve as an Eco-Sensitive Zone. Under this Notification, the State Government of Tamil Nadu has been expressly directed to regulate land use generally, as well commercial establishment of hotels/resorts specifically, in the Eco-Sensitive Zone so established. As was held by this Court in C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. the “Precautionary Principle” has been accepted as a part of the law of our land. Articles 21, 47, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India give a clear mandate to the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. It is the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures. The Precautionary Principle makes it mandatory for the State Government to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. In this light, we have no hesitation in holding that in order to protect the elephant population in the Sigur Plateau region, it was necessary and appropriate for

the State Government to limit commercial activity in the areas falling within the Elephant Corridor.

41. The second limb of the appellants’ submissions comprises of questions about the scientific accuracy of the Expert Committee’s Report and contentions that the dimensions as well as the location of the single corridor identified therein are at odds with authoritative scientific publications. It has been argued by the appellants that their resorts and other establishments do not fall within the historic corridors identified in these publications. These assertions were dealt with by the High Court which held that there was material on record to show presence of elephants as well as a past incident of human-elephant conflict, which resulted in the death of a French tourist, in the region where the appellants’ resorts are located. The High Court also held that any absence of elephants from the areas surrounding the appellants’ resorts was, in fact, due to the construction activities of the appellants whereby access of the elephants has been restricted through erection of electric fencing. We see no reason to interfere with the above factual findings of the High Court and also do not find fault in the State Government’s adoption of the recommendations of the High Court-appointed Expert Committee, through the impugned G.O.
42. This brings us to the last limb of the submissions of the appellants, which is comprised of factual objections to the acreage of the Elephant Corridor as notified by the impugned G.O. and the actions taken by the District Collector, Nilgiris in pursuance thereof. The appellants have contended that there has been substantial variance between the acreage recommended for acquisition by the Expert Committee Report and the acreage in the impugned G.O. It is further alleged that the acreage in the newspaper advertisement by the State Government inviting objections to notification of the corridor is also different from the acreage in the impugned G.O. As all the objections received pursuant to the said newspaper advertisement were rejected by the State Government and since the impugned G.O. purported to adopt the recommendations of the Expert Committee, the appellants allege that the said variance in acreage is arbitrary and unreasonable. It has also been alleged that the District Collector, Nilgiris has acted arbitrarily in sealing their resorts after rejecting the documents submitted by the appellant resorts purporting to show approvals and title. Similarly, it has been alleged that the District Collector went beyond the scope of this Court’s order dated 24.12.2018 wherein immediate removal of electric fences and barbed wire was directed. It is the appellants’ case that non-electric fences as well as fences beyond the notified Elephant Corridor area were removed by the District Collector. We are of the view that it is just and proper to hold an inquiry to establish the veracity of the above factual objections of the appellants.
43. Therefore, we appoint a 3-member Inquiry Committee consisting of: (i) Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Venkatraman, Former Judge of the Madras High Court (Chairman); (ii) Mr. Ajay Desai, Consultant to World Wide Fund for Nature-India and Member of the Technical Committee to come up with a National Elephant Action Plan (NEAP), constituted by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change

(MOEF&CC); and (iii) Mr. Praveen

Bhargava, Trustee of Wildlife First and

Former Member of National Board for

Wildlife to decide the individual objections of the appellants and any other persons claiming to be aggrieved by the actions of the District Collector, Nilgiris pursuant to the impugned G.O. and as recorded before us through her Plan of Action Report and her twin Action Taken Reports, as also the allegations regarding arbitrary variance in acreage of the Elephant Corridor under the impugned G.O. The State Government is directed to consult the Chairman of the Inquiry Committee and pay remuneration to him and the other Members of the Inquiry Committee. Further, we direct the State Government to provide appropriate secretarial assistance and logistical support to the Inquiry Committee for holding the inquiry within four weeks from today.

44. We leave it to the discretion of the Inquiry Committee to decide the location for its inquiry proceedings. We also authorize the Inquiry Committee to appoint requisite staff on temporary basis to assist the Committee in the inquiry and to fix their salaries. The State Government is directed to pay their salaries.

The State Government and the District level authorities are directed to provide their full cooperation and produce any and all files/documents required by the Inquiry Committee to address the grievances of the appellants and any other persons claiming to be similarly aggrieved. The appellants and other persons claiming to be aggrieved by the plan of action/actions of the District Collector, Nilgiris pursuant to the impugned G.O. and the allegations regarding variance in acreage under the impugned G.O, are permitted to file objections containing their grievances before the Inquiry Committee within a period of four months from today. The Inquiry Committee is directed to consider the objections filed before it and pass appropriate orders thereon after granting the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The parties are also permitted to file documents in support of their respective contentions before the Inquiry Committee.

45. The present appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All pending applications shall stand disposed of.
46. In the detailed plan of action report submitted by the then District Collector before the Hon’ble Supreme Court based on its previous order dated 12.07.2018, regarding the constructions made in the Elephant Corridor, 09 Estates/Plantations were identified which also included this writ petitioners Estate namely “Singara Estate”.
47. Aggrieved by the plan of action/action taken by the then

Collector, the petitioner herein has also filed written

Submission/Objection before the Segur Plateau Elephant Corridor

Inquiry Committee Constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

Civil Appellate Nos.3438-3439 of 2020 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 17313-17314 of 2011 vide its order dated 14.10.2020.

126. Before the above said Inquiry Committee, the District Collector, Nilgiris has filed a counter against the objections filed by this writ petitioner wherein it was submitted as follows:-

6)It is respectfully submitted that petitioner’s

Grandfather one (late) B. Nathmall Vaid of Seth Sivlall Nathmall & Co became entitled to the scheduled mentioned properties inter alia by virtue of the sale deed dated 11.11.1939 vide document. number 1109/39 of Sub Registrar, Udhagai, the petitioners are descendants and owners of the scheduled mentioned properties in Masinagudi Village of Udhgamandalam Taluk in Old Survey numbers 236/1B1, 212/1A, 252 & 236/6A1 Correlated to New Survey numbers 275, 274/1, 249 & 252/2 respectively. In the above land coffee is being harvested from varieties of both Arabica & Robusta along wíth bamboos, pepper, jackfruit, mangoes and other fruit yielding trees and other shade trees. The above said survey numbers have been notified under the TNPPF Act by the Collector’s notification in the Nilgiris District Gazette dated 15.11.1991.

7)It is respectfully submitted that, the petitioner’s land in New Survey number’s 275, 274/1, 249 & 252/2 of Masinagudi Village was notified in Elephant Corridor area vide G.O.Ms.125 Environment and Forest (FR.5) Department dated 31.08.2010 for establishment of Elephant Corridor area comprising Sholur, Kadanad, Masinagudi and Hullathi Villages of Udhagamandalam Taluk. Further, the same was notified in the Nilgiris District Gazette No.3 dated 01.08.2011 by the then Collector of Nilgiris. Hence, the petitioner’s contention is that the new survey numbers 249 and 252/2 of Masinagudi village is not part of the Elephant Corridor is totally wrong. The petitioner is fully aware this fact and has submitted false information to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and to this Hon’ble Committee. Further it is submitted that in the plan of Action of the then Nilgiris District Collector, the petitioner’s said land comes under the Estates/ Plantations Sl.No.1., Singara Estate, Masinagudi. The petitioner’s land falls within the Elephant Corridor area and surrounded by all the other survey numbers which are covered in the Elephant Corridor and is quite obvious that the extent of the New Survey number’s 275, 274/1, 249 & 252/2 has been Included as a composite field of the Elephant Corridor area which is well known to the petitioner.

8)It is respectfully submitted that, the Expert committee formed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.10098/2008 and 2762 & 2839 of 2009 regarding formation of Elephant

Corridor area reported that the Masinagudi –

Sinagara corridor also forms part of the Elephant Corridor area in page No.29 in Sl.No.2 of the report (Annexure-I).

9)It is respectfully submitted that petitioners lands are situated in the Elephant Corridor Area as per the Gazette Notification published for the Elephant Corridor. The above said land was purchased before the notification of the Elephant Corridor in G.0.Ms.No.125 Environment and Forest Department dated: 31.08.2010.

10) It is submitted that as far as the lands owned by the petitioners which are used for plantations in the notified Elephant Corridor area may be permitted with the following conditions:-

1. The houses if any in the estate should be used for the bonafide living of the owner and should not be used for any commercial activity what so ever.

II.The Septic Tank of the House should be elevated above the ground level and covered with concrete of, minimum 12 Cms thickness.

III.Except in critical bottle neck areas, any type of fencing around the House should only be solar powered battery operated connection with 12 V power and be duly certified by the Deputy Director of Mudumalai Tiger Reserve buffer Zone that the solar powered fencing would not cause any danger to wild animals. In the bottle neck areas where the household falls within 500 meter of nearest forest boundary, no fencing in any form should be allowed in order to ensure free movement of elephants in the corridor. The petitioner should apply before the District committee under TNPPFAct to install / retain the existing solar fence and permission for the same will be granted subject to conditions.

IV.In the Cultivation field there should be no fencing made around the field and the route for the moving of Elephants should be cleared without any hindrance. Further crops that would attract elephants such as Banana, sugarcane, coconut, Palm etc, should not be cultivated. Open wells in cultivated lands and households should be surrounded by wall up to 5 feet and closed with iron mesh.

1. No chemical pesticide or inorganic manure shall be used in the cultivation fields in the notified Elephant Corridor.
2. Any wires that carry. electricity in the above areas should be above 30 feet height.

• Motor pump sets for drawing water should not be in the open area and the power supply to such pump sets should be only through underground.

VIII.Water should not be drawn from the natural water bodies/streams/rivers in the Elephant Corridor.

1. Dumping of garbage in the habitations in the corridor should not be done in open area and the same shall be collected in bins properly and disposed at the solid waste facility provided by the local authority.
2. Fire crackers for any occasion should not be used by the households and other cultivators in this landscape.
3. The District administration in consultation with the Forest Department would impose additional conditions if needed in the future, whichever feels necessary for maintaining a free passage to the elephants in the corridor.

• In the event of any violation of the above said conditions, it will be open to the State Government to take over the possession of the land owned by the petitioner under the provisions of Tamilnadu PrivateForests(Assumption of Management)Act 1961.

Hence, considering the livelihood of the people to carry Plantation and Agricultural activities and legally constructed houses in the Elephant Corridor area may be allowed only if the petitioners filing affidavit of undertaking to abide by the above said conditions.

127. In the above said counter filled by the Collector of Nilgiris, it was prayed before the Committee to direct the petitioner herein to submit an affidavit of undertaking within stipulated time before the Hon’ble Inquiry Committee undertaking to abide by the above conditions in para 10 (I) to (XII) and to issue a direction to the petitioner to strictly adhere to such undertaking to continue to be in possession of his land situated in the Elephant Corridor.
128. Recently, by a communication dated 29.8.2022 bearing reference Letter No: 300/SPECIC/00TY/2022-2023/Dated 29.08.2022, the Segur Plateau Elephant Corridor Inquiry Committee formed pursuant to the above order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appellate Nos.34383439 of 2020 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 17313-17314 of 2011) vide order dated 14.10.2020 had informed the petitioner herein that an enquiry would be held on 13.9.2022 and that a link will be sent by the Collectorate Office. The petitioner was asked to furnish two copies of documents already filed by the petitioner and four copies of objections, if any. The peititioner was directed to handed over the documents at the office of the Nilgirs Collector. It is not clear whether the petitioner has complied with the above directions of the Segur Plateau Elephant

Coriidor Inquiry Committee.

129. From a reading of the latest order of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court dated 14.10.2020 in Civil Appellate Nos.3438-3439 of 2020 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 17313-17314 of 2011) and

G.O.Ms.No.125 Environment & Forests (FR.5) Department dated

31.08.2010 it is clear that the land in S.No. 274/1, 275, 249 & 252/2 of Masinagudi Village falls within the Elephant Corridor.

130. As thing stand today, the land has been identified falling the within the Elephant Corridor in G.O.Ms.No.125, Environment & Forests (FR.5) Department dated 31.08.2010.
131. The petitioner therefore cannot seek permission to cut and clear bamboo from land in S.No. 274/1, 275 in Masinagudi Village. Considering the fact that the land has been already declared as a private forest which now fall within the Elephant Corridor, the question of the petitioner either having access to the land in S.No. 274/1, 275 or getting permission to cut and clear bamboos under section 3(1) of Tamilnadu

Preservation of Private Forest Act 1949 cannot be countenanced.

132. As long as the land is located in the Elephant Corridor, question of cutting or clearing bamboos whether grown spontaneously or siliviculturally cannot be allowed to be harvested by the petitioner as “Bamboo” is a staple diet of Elephants.
133. Pachyderm such as Elephants and other animals cannot be deprived of their natural food & shelter in their natural habitat whether grown spontaneously or silviculturally as has been claimed by the petitioner. That apart there is also a serious doubt regarding the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner’s grandfather had grown bamboo in these lands.
134. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the State Government is empowered to protect the habitats situated on the petitioners land by notifying it as an Elephant Corridor.
135. Only if the land do not fall within the Elephant Corridor, the petitioner may be entitled for a permission under section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act,1949.
136. If there is any discrepancy in the location of the land within the Elephant Corridor, it is however open for the petitioner to persuade to the Committee constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the land does not fall within the purview of the Elephant Corridor notified under G.O.Ms.No.125, Environment & Forests (FR.5) Department dated

31.08.2010.

137. State Government shall therefore take steps to acquire the land as was indicated by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 10.09.2009, 07.042011 and 03.12.2009 in W.P.No.10098 of 2008.
138. This exercise shall be carried for the entire stretch of the land which have been classified as private forest land and has been declared as forming part of the Elephant Corridor. Any decision to acquire the land or cancel the pattas  affecting the rights of petitioner and other persons having pattas over the land declared as Elephant Corridor shall be after due notice to them and after following principles of natural justice.
139. The Forest Department shall co-ordinate with the concerned department of the State Government to facilitate acquisition of the lands in Elephant Corridor.
140. While, acquiring the lands for awarding compensations to persons in whose name pattas have been issued, a thorough examination shall also be made by the State Government regarding the circumstances surrounding the grant of pattas to the petitioner’s grandfather’s vendor

and others at the end of the 18^th Century  and in the beginning of the 19^th Century, under the prevailing enactments and Board Standing Orders.

141. As the things stand now, the petitioner cannot ask for permission. The petitioner has to cooperate in preserving the forest for forest are common heritage of all animals in the animal habitat in these forests.
142. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be given permission to remove bamboo from land in S.No. 274/1 & 275 and 249 & 252/2 of Masinagudi Village at they fall within the Elephant Corridor notified under G.O.Ms.No.125 Environment & Forests (FR.5) Department dated

31.08.2010.

143. This Writ Petition stands dismissed with the above liberty and observations. No costs.   Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

30.06.2023

Index      :   Yes/No

Internet   :   Yes/No Neutral Citation :  Yes/No kkd

C.SARAVANAN,J.

kkd

To

1.Collector of Nilgiris District &     Chairman of the Committee Constituted         under Tamil Nadu Preservation of

Private Forest Act, 1949,

Collector’s Office,

Udhagamandalam 643 001,

Nilgiris District.

2.The District Forest Officer,

Gudalur Division,     Gudalur Post,     Nilgiris District.

3. The Deputy Director,

Mudumalai Tiger-Reserve,      Masinagudi, The Nilgiris District.

Pre-delivery Order in

 W.P.No.9378 of 2013

30.06.2023