1958 (3) TMI 78 - HC - Indian Laws

Court orders review of property sale request under Preservation of Private Forests Act

Sankara Menon Versus District Collector Palghat

The court allowed the application for a writ of mandamus under Art.226, directing the District Collector to review the petitioner's request to sell ... - Issues:Application for writ of mandamus under Art.226 to grant permission for selling property under Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949.Analysis:The judgment involves an application for a writ of mandamus under Art.226 of the Constitution to grant permission for selling a property under the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949. The property in question, Survey No. 205/14, was part of a sale conducted in pursuance of a court decree. The Commissioner, authorized by the court, obtained necessary sanction from the District Collector under the Act for the sale of the property. The petitioner, who purchased the property, sought permission to sell portions of it, but the Collector declined based on a dispute over Jenmom right in a civil suit. The Government, on appeal, upheld the Collector's decision citing the ongoing civil suit. The petitioner challenged the decision, arguing that the Collector's order was vitiated by material irregularity under the Act.The duty of the District Collector in dealing with applications under the Act for permission to alienate forests was discussed. The Act aims to prevent destruction of private forests and interference with rights therein. The definition of an owner under the Act includes a person having the right to possession and enjoyment of the forest. The petitioner, as a purchaser in a court sale with permission from the District Collector, was considered an owner under the Act. Section 3 of the Act requires prior sanction from the District Collector for certain transactions to prevent harm to the forest's utility. The Collector's role is limited to verifying ownership and granting permission unless there are valid legal grounds for rejection.The judgment emphasized that the Collector cannot inquire into the title of the applicant beyond verifying ownership under the Act. The reason cited by the Collector and the Government regarding the civil suit challenging the petitioner's title was deemed invalid for rejecting the application. The petitioner's success in the civil suit was deemed irrelevant to the permission under the Act. Consequently, the orders of the Collector and the Government regarding Survey No. 205/14 were set aside, directing the Collector to review the petitioner's applications under the Act based on the judgment's observations promptly. No costs were awarded in the matter.