W.A.(MD)No.326 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 02.04.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 28.04.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.A(MD)No.326 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.2533 of 2025 K.Kumaraswamy ... Appellant Vs. 1.J.Rajaretnam 2.R.Jaya Nagammal 3.The District Collector, Chairman, District Committee (Formed under Section 2A of Tamilnadu Private Forest Preservation Act), Collectorate, Kanyakumari District. 4.The District Forest Officer, Member Secretary, District Committee (Formed under Section 2A of Tamilnadu Private Forest Preservation Act), Kanyakumari Range, Collectorate, Kanyakumari District. 5.The Forest Range Officer, Azhagiapandiyapuram Forest Range, Azhagiapandiyapuram, Kanyakumari District. 6.The Tahsildar, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents 1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.326 of 2025 Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.22814 of 2024, dated 31.01.2025. For Appellant :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For R1 and R2 :Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram For R3 to R6 :M/s.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader *** JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.SRIMATHY, J.) The present writ appeal is filed by the 5th respondent in the writ petition against the order, dated 31.01.2025, passed in W.P.(MD)No.22814 of 2024. 2. The writ petition was filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the proceedings of the District Forest Officer, Kanyakumari District, dated 10.09.2024, since the same is against the order, dated 17.07.2018, passed in C.M.A.Nos.60 and 61 of 2010 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. 3. The writ petitioners had filed O.S.No.129 of 2009 on the file of II Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil, to declare the registered Lease Deed in Doc. No. 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.326 of 2025 1283 of 2005, dated 12.08.2005, alleged to have been executed by the father-in- law of the 1st writ petitioner and father of the 2nd writ petitioner in favour of the 5th respondent in respect of 125 acres of private forest estate for more than 99 years as null and void and for recovery of 125 acres from the 5th respondent who is the contesting defendant in the suit. Likewise, another suit in O.S.No.159 of 2009 on the file of II Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil, was filed by the 2nd writ petitioner to declare the registered Sale Deed in Doc. No.1282 of 2005, dated 12.08.2005, alleged to have been executed by the 2nd petitioner's father in favour of the 5th respondent in respect of 40 acres of private forest estate as null and void and for recovery of possession. The 5th respondent in the writ petition is the brothers’ son of 2nd petitioner's father. 4. The contention of the writ petitioners are that taking advantage of close relationship, the 5th respondent in the writ petition exploited the 2nd petitioner's father and created documents and swindled large extent of private forest estate. Pending suit, C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2546 and 2607 of 2010 were filed and vide order, dated 11.03.2015, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who filed detailed reports, dated 26.08.2019 and 04.01.2017. In the report it is stated that some of the trees had fallen, some of the trees were illegally cut and hence, 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.326 of 2025 the writ petitioners filed a petition to amend the prayer in the plaint for damages and compensation also. Even though the Courts below disallowed the application to amend the prayer, the same was allowed in C.R.P(MD)Nos.1089 to 1092 of 2023. In the suit, applications were filed seeking interim orders but the same was declined by the Trial Court. Hence, C.M.A Nos.60 and 61 of 2010 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, were filed by the writ petitioners and the cases were allowed, vide order, dated 17.07.2018. The parties were directed to maintain status quo, as per the report, dated 03.01.2017. When such interim status quo order is in operation, the District Forest Officer has granted permission to the 5th respondent in the writ petition to cut the trees and remove the same. Aggrieved over by the said order, the writ petition was filed. 5. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition and had contested the case. After considering the rival submissions, the Writ Court has held because of the interim status quo order, the District Forest Officer cannot grant permission to cut the trees. Therefore, the Writ Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the District Forest Officer. However, liberty was granted to the 5th respondent to approach the appropriate Court seeking modification of the status quo order. Aggrieved over the said order, the 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.326 of 2025 present writ appeal is filed by the 5th respondent. 6. Heard Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and M/s.D.Farjana Ghoushia, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 3 to 6 and perused the records. 7. The writ petitioners vehemently opposed to consider the appellant's claim to cut and remove the existing trees, since the same would amount to violating the status quo order. Further the appellant had suppressed the fact before the DFO that there is interim status quo order in the CMA. Further the writ petitioners would be seriously prejudiced and also would incur loss. The writ petitioners have claimed damages as well as compensation for already cut trees from the date of lease to the tune of Rs.84,00,000/- in both the suits, in such circumstances the appellant cannot be permitted to cut further trees. 8. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant planted rubber trees in the said disputed lands and also planted several other trees and plants especially pepper is planted in between rubber trees. The rubber tree would seize 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.326 of 2025 to produce latex beyond 20 years and every 20 years the rubber trees ought to be removed and new saplings ought to be planted. The new saplings would take minimum 7 years to grow to a level of producing latex. Presently the trees ought to be removed since it had attained the particular age, if not the appellant would incur heavy loss. Therefore, the appellant prayed to cut the trees as per the permission granted by the District Forest Officer in his order dated 17.07.2018. 9. On perusing the permission order of DFO, it is seen that the District Forest officer has granted permission to cut only 2162 rubber trees and has also stated only the mentioned trees can be cut, since the said trees necessarily ought to be removed. 10. As rightly pointed out by the writ petitioners, there is no reference about the pending suit in the DFO’s order, which indicates that the interim status quo was not brought to the knowledge of the DFO. But the contention of the appellant is that the status quo is only for further encumbering the property and not for growing trees, cutting trees in the dispute property. But the prayer in the C.M.A., is to grant interim injunction from alienating, encumbering, sub-leasing, and making any charge over the schedule property and from cutting and removing 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.326 of 2025 the trees and altering the nature of the suit schedule property. When the prayer is for restraining to cut and remove the trees then the said interim injunction is applicable to cutting and removing also. 11. However, the said interim injunction order was granted since as on the date of granting the interim injunction order, the appellant was not having any permission order from the DFO. Had the DFO granted any permission to cut the trees, the order passed in C.M.A., might have been different. Now the appellant is having an order to cut the trees. The DFO was not a party in the said suit and other litigations, therefore the DFO is not bind by the interim injunction order. The DFO had considered the appellant application and passed the order as per the power granted to him. Now the interim injunction order ought to be considered in the light of the said DFO’s permission. 12. Under such circumstances, the Writ Court thought it fit to direct the appellant to file appropriate application before the Civil Court. But the time line of the suit ought to be considered while considering the appellant’s claim. The C.M.A., order was passed on 17.07.2018, against the same the appellant ought to file either revision, review or appeal, then limitation would stare at the appellant. 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.326 of 2025 Further the litigation between the appellant and the writ petitioner is prolonging for several years i.e. more than 15 years, since the suit is filed in the year 2009 and the suit is still pending. The litigations among human beings would prolong but the nature would not stop or wait for the litigation. In other words, the growth of the trees would not wait for the litigation to complete. Therefore, instead of directing the appellant to file revision, review or appeal to modify the interim status quo order, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claim of the appellant may be considered by this Court itself. However, the rights of the parties ought to be protected. 13. Therefore, this Court is passing the following orders: i) The appellant is permitted to cut 2162 rubber trees alone, as per the permission granted by the District Forest Officer dated 17.07.2018. As directed by the District Forest Officer, the appellant is directed to plant new saplings of rubber plants in the place where the rubber trees are allowed to cut. ii) The appellant shall deposit Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) to the credit of the suit in O.S.No.129 of 2009 on the file of II 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.326 of 2025 Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil. The rights of the said Rs.15,00,000/- shall be determined in the said suit itself. The II Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil, shall deposit the said amount in an interest accruing fixed deposit. iii) The writ petitioners are permitted to raise an issue regarding the value of the cut tress in the suit. 14. Therefore, the order passed by the Writ Court is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed in above terms. The Trial Court is directed to complete the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [J.N.B., J.] [S.S.Y., J.] 28.04.2025 Index : Yes / No Tmg 9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.326 of 2025 To 1.The District Collector, Chairman, District Committee (Formed under Section 2A of Tamilnadu Private Forest Preservation Act), Collectorate, Kanyakumari District. 2.The District Forest Officer, Member Secretary, District Committee (Formed under Section 2A of Tamilnadu Private Forest Preservation Act), Kanyakumari Range, Collectorate, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Forest Range Officer, Azhagiapandiyapuram Forest Range, Azhagiapandiyapuram, Kanyakumari District. 4.The Tahsildar, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District. Copy to II Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil 10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.326 of 2025 J.NISHA BANU, J. and S.SRIMATHY, J. Tmg W.A(MD)No.326 of 2025 28.04.2025 11/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis