AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—By consent, all the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. Since the prayers sought for in all the writ petitions are
identical, the writ petitions are disposed of by a common order.
The prayer in the writ petitions is to quash the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.K2/85793/07, dated
18.02.2009 insofar as it relates to setting aside the Tenancy Rights granted by the third respondent in favour of the petitioners in T.R. Nos. 87, 86
and 88 of 2004 under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act X of 1969 and quash the same as illegal.
The case of the petitioners is that the tenancy right was created in favour of the petitioners pursuant to the orders passed by the Tahsildar,
Nanguneri and in pursuance of the same, they were cultivating the property. It is their further assertion that they have been contributing their
physical labour and such right was granted in their favour only after holding an enquiry under the Act. It is further stated that the first respondent,
the District Collector cum the Chairman of Tirunelveli, District Forest Committee, is said to have called for a report from the Deputy Director
Forest and Wild Life Warden, Kalakadu and the Chief Conservator of Forest, and they sent a report stating that the land comprising in S. No.
1075, Pathai village is notified as private forest belonging to the Mutt, and accordingly, recommended for setting aside the tenancy rights given to
the cultivating tenants in respect of land in S. No. 1075. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not cultivating tenants in respect of the said
property and the tenancy rights conferred on the petitioners in terms of the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969 could be set aside or modified only in the
manner provided under the said Act.
The petitioners have assailed the correctness of the said order on the above said grounds as well as contending that the order has been passed
without even issuing notice or conducting an enquiry and it is violation of principles of natural justice. The question of jurisdiction has also been
raised, by stating that the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969 is a self contained code and provides for right of internal appeal u/s 6 and Revision u/s 7 and
therefore, the impugned order is illegal.
The third respondent filed a counter affidavit in which it has been contended that the lands in S. No. 1052/1-A measuring an extent of 8.50.0
Hec. and in S. No. 1052/2 measuring an extent of 3.64.0 Hec. of Pathai II village in Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District belongs to
Thiruvadudurai Adeenam Mutt as per Patta No. 554 and these lands were notified as private forest land as per G.O.Ms. No. 2197, Revenue,
dated 05.06.1956 u/s 1(ii)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949 (Mds Act XXVII of 1945) as per Section 3(1)(A-1) of the
above act the owner of the Private Forest Lands cannot sell, mortgage or lease the private forest lands without the permission of the District Forest
Committee. But the Tahsildar, Nanguneri cum Record Officer under Tamil Nadu Agriculture Land Record Tenancy Rights Act X of 1969, dated
10.08.1969 has recorded the name of the petitioners as cultivating tenant for the above said lands in his order T.R. No. 14 of 2005 dated
19.07.2005. The Deputy Director Forest and Wild Life Warden, Kalakad Sanctuary in his letter, dated 15.11.2007 has brought to the notice of
the first respondent, the District Collector stating that the said land was leased out and the trees standing in the land were removed and the said
land is used for Non Forest purpose in contravention of the provision of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949. The owner of
the said land (i.e.) Thiruvaduthurai Adtheenam mutt has also informed by letter dated 08.07.2008 to the Tahsildar, Nanguneri that they have not
leased out the said land to anybody and requested to cancel the tenancy rights recorded in respect of the said land. It is further stated that the
matter was placed before the District Forest Committee on 11.02.2009 in which the Tahsildar, Nanguneri is a member and it was decided to
cancel the tenancy rights given in respect of the said lands. Accordingly, the District Collector cum Chairman District Forest Committee, Tirunelveli
in his proceedings dated 18.02.2009 cancelled the tenancy rights in respect of the said lands.
Heard Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(MD) Nos. 3200 and 3203 of 2009 and Mr. T.A. Ebenezer,
learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(MD) No. 3340 of 2009, Mr. C. Rajakumar, learned Counsel appearing for the second and
fourth respondent in all the writ petitions and Mr. Pala. Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.
For the purpose of disposal of the writ petitions, I do not propose to go into the question of jurisdiction raised by the petitioners as to whether
the tenancy right could be terminated without resorting to the procedures under Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969 or as to whether the first respondent,
the District Collector cum the Chairman of District Forest Committee is entitled to exercise his right by virtue of the notification in G.O.Ms. No.
2197, dated 05.06.1956 under Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949. Admittedly, the tenancy right has been created in favour of
the petitioners during June 2005. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been utilising the properties all these years and it is admitted in the
counter affidavit that they have come to know of such tenancy right created in favour of the petitioners only on 15.11.2007 when the Deputy
Director Forest and Wild Life Warden, Kalakadu intimated the first respondent. It is seen that the mutt had only thereafter proceeded to request
the Tahsildar, Nanguneri on 08.07.2008 to take suo motu action to cancel the tenancy. Thus, all the tenancy orders in favour of the petitioners
from 2005 till the date of passing of the impugned order, came to be cancelled. It is one thing to state that there is no right for the petitioners to
enter into the property and that the petitioners should be treated as the encroachers. However, this is not one such a case, since the petitioners are
armed with an order passed under the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969, which according to the petitioners, came to be passed after conducting
thorough enquiry. In such circumstances, if the first respondent Committee comes to prima facie conclusion that such tenancy right granted in
favour of the petitioners is not tenable for certain reasons, it is incumbent upon the first respondent Committee to follow the principles of natural
justice and issue notice to the petitioners calling their objections, after affording them an opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter pass an
order giving reasons. Admittedly, such procedure has not been adopted by the first respondent Committee and the impugned order came to be
passed unilaterally in a meeting convened by the first respondent Committee on 11.02.2009. This fact has been admitted in the counter affidavit
sworn to by the third respondent, the Tahsildar, Nanguneri. Therefore, on the short ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the
petitioners are entitled to succeed. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The first respondent
Committee, is directed to issue notice to the petitioners specifically pointing out the grounds on which, they seek to terminate the tenancy or evict
them from their possession. The notice shall also specifically indicate as to whether the source of power of the first respondent to initiate such
action. On receipt of such notice, the petitioners are entitled to submit their objections and also raise the question of jurisdiction which has been
raised in the writ petitions and such other matters which they wish place before the first respondent. On receipt of their objections, the first
respondent Committee shall conduct an enquiry into the matter after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and thereafter,
pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order by the first respondent Committee. No costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD) Nos. 2 & 3 of 2009 are closed.