The 152-year-old Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation, part of the Wadia Group, has moved the Madras High Court Bench here against State government’s move to declare as reserve forest about 8,373.57 acres in the Kalakkad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve in Tirunelveli district which was leased to the company for 99 years by erstwhile Singampatti Zamindar in 1929.
Justice T. Mathivanan on Friday directed the State government to file its counter affidavit by January 22 and ordered it not to take any coercive action till then on the basis of an order passed by a Forest Settlement Officer on January 6, 2010 rejecting the company’s claim for right of occupancy as a lessee and exempting the vast tract of land in its possession from being declared as a reserve forest.
Though the Forest Settlement Officer’s order was initially challenged by way of a civil appeal, the First Additional District and Sessions Court in Tirunelveli dismissed the appeal on September 1 this year after rejecting all grounds raised by the company, to substantiate its claim for right of occupancy, and hence it had moved the High Court now through a civil revision petition.
Additional District Judge P. Dhanabal rejected the company’s main contention that the land in its possession was a Ryoti (cultivable) land and therefore the government lacked the authority to declare it as a reserve forest. Pointing out that the lease deed itself had referred to it as a minor forest land, he said subsequent cultivation by the company would not change its character.
The judge also rejected the company’s other argument that the land was actually not at the disposal of the government. He pointed out that the government had taken over the Singampatti estate way back in 1952 under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and subsequently passed an order in 1958 permitting the company to remain in possession of the leased area.
The company too had accepted the order and got the principal lease deed amended by the State government in 1966 and 1973 in order to sell the produce from the leased lands. “Therefore, the petitioner admitted the title of the government and that the government is the owner of the property… The petitioner is not entitled to a right over the property,” the District Judge had said.
However, assailing his decision before the High Court on several grounds, the company claimed that the District Judge should not have ignored the fact that the Forest Settlement Officer had abdicated his duty by seeking an opinion from a Government Pleader before rejecting the claim for right of occupancy.
District judge
had rejected
the company’s
claim that it is cultivable land
