The Madras High Court on Wednesday suggested that the State government could take stock of forest lands in occupation of private individuals as well as establishments for long and retrieve all of them in an effort to increase the much-needed green cover in the region.
Justices Huluvadi G. Ramesh and K. Kalyanasundaram told Advocate General Vijay Narayan that the Revenue Secretary could be asked to prepare a list of such forest lands and reclaim the properties in accordance with law. Such a measure would help in protecting the available forests for posterity, they said.
The suggestion was made during the hearing of a writ appeal preferred by Quaid-E-Millath Educational and Social Trust which had challenged an order passed by a single judge on August 3. The judge had upheld the decision of the government to retrieve 29.33 out of 40 acres given to the trust in January 1975.
According to senior counsel M. Ajmal Khan, representing the appellant trust founded in 1974, the government had placed at the disposal of the trust about 40 acres of land in Nanmangalam Reserve Forest near here on payment of ₹100 per acre in 1975. The land was allotted only for educational purposes.
Hence, the trust had constructed buildings on the site within two years and started a college in 1977. Since then, it had also been making repeated requests to de-reserve the area.
However, on September 25, 2012, the Environment and Forest Secretary passed an order to resume 29.33 acres on the ground that it remained unused.
Immediately, the trust filed a writ petition challenging the move to resume the lands and claimed that it had developed the lands over the years after obtaining necessary approvals, and hence, it could not be taken back. However, Justice V. Parthiban dismissed the petition on August 3 this year and hence the present writ appeal.
Report sought by Sept. 26
After hearing both the sides, the Division Bench ordered for a detailed survey of the lands by the District Forest Officer, a surveyor to be nominated by the Deputy Director of Survey and the Revenue Divisional Officer in the presence of representatives of the appellant trust as well as the counsel from both sides.
The survey must be conducted on September 24 and a report along with supporting documents to show how much of the lands had been developed, when were they developed and whether necessary statutory approvals had been obtained for such developments must be submitted before the court on September 26, the judges ordered.
