Disputed title cannot defeat forest-land sanction where the applicant otherwise fits the statutory definition of owner.

Under the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, the Collector's inquiry on prior sanction to sell forest land is confined to whether the applicant falls within the statutory definition of "owner". That definition is broad enough to include a person with the right to possession and enjoyment of the forest. The Collector has no authority to adjudicate disputed civil title, so a pending suit over jenmom right is not a legally relevant basis to refuse sanction where the applicant otherwise satisfies the Act. Refusal based on disputed title was therefore treated as an irrelevant consideration and required reconsideration in light of the governing statutory limits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the District Collector, while considering an application for prior sanction to sell forest land under the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949, could refuse permission on the ground that the applicant's title was in dispute in a pending civil suit.

Analysis: The statutory scheme confines the Collector's inquiry to whether the applicant is an owner of the forest within the meaning of the Act. The definition of owner in section 2(b) is wide enough to include a person having the right to possession and enjoyment of the forest. The purpose of section 3(1) is to regulate alienation of forest land, and section 3(2) indicates that the restriction is directed to preservation of the forest and prevention of its destruction or diminution in utility. The Act does not confer authority on the Collector to enter upon an adjudication of disputed title, and the existence of a civil dispute regarding jenmom right is not a legally relevant ground for refusing sanction once the applicant otherwise answers the statutory description of owner.

Conclusion: The Collector and the Government acted on an irrelevant consideration in refusing sanction on the ground of disputed title. The refusal was unsustainable, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered in accordance with the judgment.

---