IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.07.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NOs.731, 2440 and 3259 of 2007, 8103, 10563 and 15149 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2007, 1 to 3/10 in WP 8103/10 and MP.3,4/10 in WP 15063/10 and MP 1 to 3/10 in WP 15149/10 W.P.No.731 of 2007 : Sirumalai Pazhathotta Vivasyigal Sangam, Velanpannai, Thalakadai Post, Sirumalai, Dindigul District rep by its President Duraisamy Boopathy .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary Department of Forest and Environment, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. 4.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul 5.The Forest Settlement Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District. 6.The Central Empowerment Committee, New Delhi. .. Respondents W.P.No.2440 of 2007 : 1.L.Muruganandam 2.S.Manikandan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.K.Janarthanam 4.C.Naachan 5.K.Dharmar 6.C.Palaniammal 7.P.Azhagu 8.A.Lakshmi 9.A.Lingammal 10.M.Perumal 11.R.Vellimalai 12.R.Baskar 13.R.Rathinam 14.A.Dhanraj 15.A.Ranjitham 16.T.Dinesh 17.P.T.Arumugam 18.M.Rajagopal 19.N.Paramasivam 20.V.Subramani 21.M.Ramamoorthy 22.P.Naachan 23.A.Potti 24.K.Suruli 25.S.Lourduraj 26.M.Velusamy 27.A.Palanisamy 28.P.Vellaichamy 29.P.Chinnathurai 30.T.Paulraj 31.J.Emalda Angel Mary 32.P.Lessy Antonyraj 33.R.Jaya 34.Mariya Savior Rani 35.T.Rajendiran 36.T.Rajathiammal 37.R.M.Chandrasekar 38.D.Karuppiah 39.R.Ganesan 40.S.Ramasamy 41.J.Kannan 42.R.Jayaraman 43.M.Vajravel 44.V.Prabakaran 45.R.Sethuraman 46.N.Muthu 47.M.Dharmar 48.K.Sandanam 49.N.Rengaraj 50.S.Muthuveeran 51.D.Iyappan 52.Chellamuthu 53.S.Chinnaraj 54.S.Murugan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 55.P.Jesuraj 56.V.RAj 57.S.Thasthagir 58.S.Kasim 59.N.Azhagar 60.K.Nallathambi 61.P.Palanivelrajan 62.R.RAvichandran 63.P.S.Nagarajan 64.P.S.Palanisamy 65.A.Rajkumar 66.P.S.Azhagarsamy 67.P.S.Deepalakshmi 68.S.V.Vellimalai 69.P.Madhukkan Perumal 70.G.Uthiriyaraj 71.K.Arumugam 72.S.Palanisamy 73.P.Ravi 74.S.Azhagan 75.Azhagumalai 76.S.Arulgnanaprakasam 77.Veerappa Naicker 78.V.Muniyandi 79.Saraswathi 80.K.Nagu Maniam 81.A.Naatchimuthu 82.M.Govindaraj 83.V.Chinnakannan 84.M.Sebastian 85.M.Azagarsamy 86.N.Muthu 87.A.Karuthukannan 88.M.Marikannan 89.P.Paulraj 90.R.Balu 91.A.Sesuraj 92.S.Pappathi 93.S.Azhagan 94.M.Sandhiyagu 95.S.V.Marimuthu 96.C.Nallakannu 97.R.Krishnammal 98.C.Saravanakumar 99.D.Manjula 100.K.Amsamani 101.K.Karuthapandian 102.C.Jeevanandam 103.S.Muthu 104.T.Gopal 105.V.Kannan 106.R.Mudiyarasu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 107.Rajasannasi 108.M.Selvam 109.E.Ayyavu 110.K.S.Lakshmanan 111.Velammal 112.V.N.V.Boopathi 113.S.Lakshmi 114.C.Nalliyappa Gounder 115.A.Santhanam 116.R.Nalliyappan 117.P.Kalyani 118.N.S.P.Maduraipandian 119.M.Vetrivel 120.V.Muniyandi 121.M.Arumugam 122.R.Krishnan 123.K.Vellimalai 124.A.Murugan 125.S.Velu 126.N.Jenoba 127.P.Kadhiravan 128.M.Krishnamoorthy 129.M.Vellumalai .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. .. Respondents W.P.No.3259 of 2007 : 1.M.Thangavel 2.K.Munusamy 3.M.Panjavarnam 4.A.Ponnar 5.Amirtham 6.P.Sankar 7.Malammal 8.A.Chinniah 9.V.Vanaraj 10.M.Muthammal 11.P.Mangayammal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12.S.Arunachalam 13.N.Samiraj 14.S.Chinammal 15.Subbammal 16.Kamatchi 17.Thimmichettiar 18.S.Govindumaniam 19.C.Chandrasekar 20.S.Johnpeter 21.S.Anthonyraj 22.Chellaiah 23.M.Saravanavalli 24.T.Jayaramu 25.S.Arokiyasamy 26.C.Muthu 27.S.Muthu 28.Semban Ambalam 29.P.Rajaramu Gounder 30.T.Mallaya Gounder 31.V.Vellimalai 32.S.Perumal 33.A.Motchamery 34.P.Azhagu 35.P.Chinnaveeri 36.P.Vellivel 37.Magudeeswari 38.V.Raja 39.A.Palanisamy Gounder 40.R.Ramar 41.M.Karnan 42.M.Vellimalai 43.A.Selvi 44.M.Ramasamy 45.R.Nagaraj 46.T.Veerappan 47.Subbammal 48.M.Dhanalakshmi 49.J.Janarthanan 50.K.Rajramu 51.V.Murugan 52.Vellaiammal 53.S.Govindan 54.T.Palanisamy 55.T.Ramasamy 56.Muthukalai 57.Pichaiammal 58.A.Subburayan 59.P.Nagappan 60.V.Vellimalai 61.S.Subramani 62.P.Vellaisamy 63.P.Parvathiyam https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 64.P.Rajkumar 65.K.Sindhammal 66.A.Kanchivanam 67.P.S.Pappathi 68.S.Karnan 69.V.Munusamy 70.T.Subramani 71.V.Vallimalai 72.M.Sakthivel 73.S.Gandhimadhi 74.G.Murugan 75.P.Karuppusamy 76.T.Palanisamy 77.P.Selvakumar 78.S.Jayalakshmi 79.P.Manimaran 80.D.Dhandapani 81.Veerammal 82.C.Palanisamy 83.S.Kuppusamy 84.A.Perumal 85.S.Azhagammal 86.S.Saraswathi 87.P.Palanisamy 88.C.Sovadammal 89.P.Azhagar 90.A.P.Palanisamy 91.P.S.Nagarajan 92.S.Kannan .. Petitioners Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3.The District Colletor, Dindigul District, Dindigul. .. Respondents W.P.No.8103 of 2010 : Sirumalai Pazhathotta Vivasyigal Sangam, Velanpannai, Thalakadai Post, Sirumalai, Dindigul District rep by M.Thangavel, Secretary. .. Petitioner Vs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. .. Respondents W.P.No.10563 of 2010 : 1.Renganayaki 2.Thangapandiyan 3.Parthasarathy 4.Ganasekar 5.Janaki 6.Rukumani 7.Balamani 8.Muthulakshmi 9.Ramalakshmi 10.Palanisamy 11.Kannan 12.Adilakshmi 13.Sivakumar 14.Perumal 15.Gopinathan 16.Ellappan 17.Perumal 18.Vijayaragavan 19.Palraj 20.Rajendran 21.Kanagaraj 22.Nachammal 23.Illakia 24.Hema 25.Palanisamy 26.Perumal 27.Suresh 28.Nandagopal .. Petitioners Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 4.The Sirumalai first grade Panchayat rep by its President, Sirumalai Pazayanur Post, Sirumalai, Dindigul District. .. Respondents W.P.No.15149 of 2010 : 1.M.Thangavel 2.K.Munusamy 3.M.Panjavarnan 4.Ponnar 5.Amirtham 6.P.Sankar 7.Malammal 8.Chinniah 9.V.Vanaraj 10.M.Muthammal 11.P.Mangayammal 12.S.Arunachalam 13.N.Samiraj 14.S.Chinammal 15.Mohanraj 16.Kamatchi 17.Thimmichettiar 18.S.Govindumaniam 19.C.Chandrasekar 20.S.Johnpeter 21.S.Anthonyraj 22.Chelliah 23.M.Saravanavalli 24.T.Jayaramu 25.S.Arockiyasamy 26.C.Muthu 27.S.Muthu 28.Semban Ambalam 29.P.Rajaramu Gounder 30.T.Mallaya Gounder 31.V.Vellimalai 32.S.Perumal 33.Motchamery 34.P.Azhagu 35.P.Chinnaveeri 36.P.Vetrivel 37.Magudeeswari 38.V.Raja https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 39.A.Palanisamy Gounder 40.A.Ramar 41.M.Karan 42.M.Vellimalai 43.Selvi 44.M.Ramasamy 45.R.Nagaraj 46.T.Veerappan 47.Subbammal 48.M.Dhanalakshmi 49.J.Janarthanan 50.K.Rajaramu 51.V.Murugan 52.Vellaiammal 53.S.Govindan 54.T.Palanisamy 55.T.Ramasamy 56.Muthukalai 57.Pichaiammal 58.Suburayal 59.P.Nagappan 60.V.Vellimalai 61.S.Subramani 62.P.Vellaisamy 63.P.Parvathiyammal 64.P.Rajkumar 65.K.Sindhammal 66.Kanchivanam 67.P.S.Pappathi 68.S.Kannan 69.V.Munusamy 70.T.Subramani 71.V.Vellimalai 72.M.Sakthivel 73.S.Gandhimadhi 74.G.Murugan 75.P.Karuppusamy 76.T.Palanisamy 77.P.Selvakumar 78.S.Jayalakshmi 79.P.Manimaran 80.D.Dhandapani 81.Veerammal 82.C.Palanisamy 83.S.Kuppusamy 84.Perumal 85.S.Azhagammal 86.S.Saraswathi 87.P.Palanisamy 88.C.Savadammal 89.P.Azhagar 90.A.P.Palanisamy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 91.Sanmugavel 92.S.Kannan 93.S.Rathinam 94.S.Thomas Anthony 95.Savariyar 96.Veerasamy 97.S.Velusamy 98.Dhanalakshmi 99.Duraipandi 100.S.Katturaj 101.Soundarajan 102.Thangaraj 103.Ponnukalai 104.Pitchaimani 105.N.Raman 106.K.Rasumaniam 107.Gurusamy 108.Surendaran 109.Selvakumar 110.P.Kulandaivel 110.Pandiyammal 112.S.Manikandan 113.K.Janarthanam 114.C.Naachan 115.K.Dharmar 116.C.Palaniammal 117.P.Azhagu 118.Lakshmi 119.Lingammal 120.M.Perumal 121.R.Vellimalai 122.R.Baskar 123.R.Rathinam 124.Dhanraj 125.Ranjitham 126.D.Dinesh 127.P.T.Arumugam 128.M.Rajagopal 129.V.Subramani 130.M.Ramamoorthy 131.N.Paramasivam 132.P.Naachan 133.Potti 134.K.Suruli 135.S.Lourduraj 136.M.Velusamy 137.Palanisamy 138.P.Vellaichamy 139.P.Chinnathurai 140.T.Paulraj 141.J.Emalda Angel Mary 142.P.Lessy Anthonyraj https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 143.R.Jaya 144.Mariya Savior Rani 145.T.Rajendran 146.T.Rajathammal 147.M.Chandrasekar 148.D.Karuppiah 149.R.Ganesan 150.S.Ramasamy 151.J.Kannan 152.R.Jayaraman 153.M.Vajravel 154.V.Prabaharan 155.R.Sethuraman 156.N.Muthu 157.M.Dharmar 158.K.Sandhanam 159.N.Rengaraj 160.S.Muthuveeran 161.D.Iyappan 162.Chellamuthu 163.S.Chinnaraj 164.S.Murugan 165.P.Jesuraj 166.V.Raj 167.S.Thasthagir 168.S.Kasim 169.N.Azhagar 170.K.Nallathambi 171.P.Palanivelrajan 172.R.Ravichandran 173.P.S.Nagarajan 174.P.S.Palanisamy 175.Rajkumar 176.P.S.Azhagarsamy 177.P.S.Deepalakshmi 178.S.V.Vellimalai 179.P.Madhukkan Perumal 180.G.Uthiriyaraj 181.K.Arumugam 182.S.Palanisamy 183.P.Ravi 184.S.Azhagan 185.Azhagumalai 186.S.Arulgananaprakasam 187.Veerappa Naicker 188.V.Muniyandi 189.Saraswathi 190.K.Nagumaniam 191.Naatchimuthu 192.M.Govindaraj 193.V.Chinnakkannan 194.M.Sebastian https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 195.M.Azhagarsamy 196.N.Muthu 197.K.Karuthukannan 198.M.Marikannan 199.P.Paulraj 200.R.Balu 201.Sesuraj 202.S.Papatthi 203.M.Sandhiyagu 204.S.V.Marimuthu 205.C.Nallakannu 206.R.Krishnammal 207.C.Saravanakumar 208.D.Manjula 209.K.Amsamani 210.K.Karuthapandian 211.C.Jeevanandam 212.S.Muthu 213.T.Gopal 214.V.Kannan 215.R.Mudiyarasu 216.Rajasannasi 217.M.Selvam 218.E.Ayyavu 219.K.S.Lakshmanan 220.Vellammal 221.V.N.V.Boopathi 222.S.Lakshmi 223.C.Nalliyappa Gounder 224.Santhanam 225.R.Nalliayappan 226.P.kalyani 227.N.S.P.Maduraiapandian 228.M.Vetrivel 229.V.Muniyandi 230.Regupathi 231.M.Arumugam 232.R.Krishnan 233.K.Vellimalai 234.Murugan 235.S.Velu 236.P.Azhagumalai 237.N.Jenoba 238.P.Kadhiravan 239.M.krishnamoorthy 240.M.Vellimalai 241.M.Kaliappan 242.M.Palanisamy 243.V.Nataraj 244.V.Ramasamy .. Petitioners Vs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 4.The Sirumalai first grade Panchayat rep by its President, Sirumalai Pazayanur Post, Sirumalai, Dindigul District. .. Respondents W.P.No.731 of 2007 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in and by his proceedings in letter (D) No.313/FR14/2006 dt 2.11.2006 and quash the same and consequently forbear the 1st respondent from notifying the petitioner land in respect of Survey Numbers contained in the 5th respondent proceedings in Na.Ka.No.19/76/A dt 24.3.2006 as reserve forest till the resettlement proceeding are conducted by 2nd respondent or rehabilitation scheme framed by the Central empowerment committee constituted by Honourable Supreme Court of India. W.P.Nos.2440 and 3259 of 2007 are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to issue patta for the petitioners in respect of their holdings (the extent which is mentioned in the Annexure) and consequently to forbear the respondents from including their lands in the proposed notification for reserve forest. * (Annexure Xerox Copy Attached) W.P.Nos.8103,10563 and 15149 of 2010 are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent made in G.O.(D) No.15 Environment and Forest (FR 14) Department, dated 4.2.2010 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to issue patta in respect of the holdings of the lands by the members of the petitioner association. For Petitioners : M/s.Selvi George in W.P.NOs.731, 2440 and 3259 of 2007, 8103 and 15149 of 2010 and also for Mr.Christopher Vijay in W.P.No.10563 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondents : Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, Advocate General assisted by Mr.M.K.Subramanian, Spl.G.P(Forest) - - - - COMMON ORDER In this batch of writ petitions, the first three writ petitions were filed in the year 2007 and the last three writ petitions were filed in the year 2010. The petitioner in W.P.No.731 of 2007 is an Association of Sirumalai Pazhathotta Vivasayigal Sangam, Velanpannai. It is claimed that the said association is a registered association with registration No.45/2004 and that it has a total membership of 635 persons. The members are the residents of Thenmalai, Thalai Kadai, Chinna Kadai, Rotti Kadu, Thavadukku Kadai and other small hamlets under the foothill of Sirumalai coming under the Dindigul Taluk. 2.In that writ petition, the petitioner association seeks to challenge an order of the first respondent State dated 02.11.2006 and seeks to set aside the same and also to further forbear the respondents from notifying the lands in survey numbers contained in the proceedings of the Forest Settlement Officer, Dindigul, dated 24.3.2006 as reserve forest till resettlement proceedings were completed by the second respondent, i.e., Revenue Department or a rehabilitation scheme framed by the Central Empowerment Committee constituted by the Supreme Court. 3.The impugned proceedings, dated 2.11.2006 is a letter addressed to the petitioner association by the State Government wherein they had referred to an order passed by the Madurai Bench of this High Court in W.P.(MD)No.5506 of 2006, dated 13.9.2006. In that order, this court had directed the State Government to consider the request of the petitioner association for the grant of patta based on the report filed by the District Forest Officer, Dindigul, dated 1.9.2006 within a time frame. In the impugned order in paragraphs 3 to 6, it was stated as follows: "3.Your sangam has sent representation dated 24.08.2006 addressed to the District Forest Officer, Dindigul requesting for exclusion of the lands they have encroached upon from the proposed notification as Reserve Forest under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. 4.The Report of the District Forest Officer, Dindigul vide Rec.No.6650/2006, dt. 1.9.2006 and the report sent by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest vide Ref.No.WR3/42046/2006, dated 25.10.2006 were considered by the Government. 149 petitions from the encroachers of Sirumalai West Block Reserve Land areas have been received by the District Forest Officer requesting for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ exclusion of their lands from the proposed notification under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. 5.The District Forest Officer has stated that he has carefully considered the claims of the petitioners and stated that as per the existing Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.No.202/95 in I.A.No.418 no patta should be granted in any forest lands and encroachment in forest land should not be regularized. These are the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the Government of Tamil Nadu. 6.Keeping all these things in mind, the Government have examined carefully the request of the said Sangam dt.24.08.2006 and the report of the District Forest Officer, Dindigul Division dated 1.9.2006 and reject the request of the petitioners of the Sirumalai Vivasayigal Sangam." 4.Even though the said order came to be passed pursuant to the directions issued by the Madurai Bench of this court, the petitioner association deliberately filed the writ petition before the Principal Bench for reasons best known to them. It has been done despite statutory requirements that such writ petition arising out of 13 revenue district coming under the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench has to be heard only by the Madurai Bench. Further the entire cause of action arose within the districts coming under the jurisdiction of Madurai Bench. However, the said writ petition was admitted on 26.4.2007. Pending the writ petition, this court had granted a status quo order to be maintained as on 26.4.2007. Subsequently, the very same petitioner association filed M.P.No.1 of 2008 seeking for the grant of an interim injunction restraining the respondents from any way surveying the land in Sirumalai village, Dindigul taluk which is in possession of the members of the petitioner association. The learned Judge of this court by an order dated 19.8.2008 in paragraph 4 of the order had directed as follows: "4.The petitioner Association has now filed M.P.No.1 of 2008 for injunction restraining the respondents from surveying the land in Sirumalai Village, Dindigul Taluk which is in possession of the members of the petitioner's association. The said prayer cannot be granted at this stage. It is open to the Government to make a survey to find out the nature of the lands so as to decide whether encroachment is there or not for enabling the Government to pass appropriate orders. In view of the same, this Court directs the Government to effect survey as per law. However till the disposal of the writ petition, the District Collector is permitted to continue the survey and if the members of the petitioner's Association are in possession, they should not be disturbed." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.Subsequently, the respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit, dated 9.4.2009. Subsequent to the said writ petition, one L.Muruganandam, S/o.K.S.Lakshmanan, Ponnurukki village, Sirumalai along with 128 persons filed W.P.No.2440 of 2007 seeking for a direction to the respondents to issue pattas in respect of their holdins of the lands set out in the annexure to the writ petition and to forbear the respondents from including those lands in the proposed notification by the State Government to declare the areas as reserve forest. In the typed set filed in that writ petition, they have also enclosed a draft revised notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act in respect of Sirumalai West Block. The said notification reads as follows: "In exercise of the powers conferred by Section I of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act 1882, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby cancel all the previous notification in so far as they relate to Sirumalai West Block. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1882) the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby declares that it is proposed to constitute as "Reserve Forest" the land within the boundaries specified in the Schedule below subject to exception noted therein and appoints the special Deputy Collector (Forest Settlement in Ex-Zamin Forests) Madurai to be the Forest Settlement Officer Ex-officio to exercise the powers under clause (c) of the said section in respect of the lands specified in the schedule. Schedule Madurai District –Dindigul and Nilakottai Taluk Name of the Block – Sirumalai West Area – 22,204-49 acres Village No.95 Sirumalai - 18,603-59 " No.103 Kulasekaran Kottai - 204-06 " No.103 -do- S.No.46 - 387-00 " No.104 Viralipatti S.No.1/1 - 3,009-84 --------------- 22,204-49 --------------- 6.The said writ petition was admitted on 22.1.2007. Pending the writ petition, this court had ordered notice in the application for injunction. On receiving the notice from this court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, dated 10.2.2011. 7.In W.P.No.3259 of 2007, the petitioners are one M.Thangavel and 91 others belonging to the same place and the relief claimed in that writ petition was similar to the one in W.P.No.2440 of 2007. That writ petition was admitted on 31.1.2007. Pending the writ petition, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ notice was ordered in the injunction application. On notice, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, dated 30.4.2010. 8.Even while those three writ petitions are pending, the respondent State had issued G.O.(D).No.15, Environment and Forest Department dated 4.2.2010 passing final orders in terms of Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest act, 1882 declaring the lands as reserve forest. It was argued that the said notification was published in the Government gazette. In the notification, it was announced that in respect of Sirumalai village, an extent of 3881.16.5 hectares were notified as reserve forest with effect from 13.9.2010. The survey numbers as well as extent of lands as per the notification declared as reserve forest in Sirumalai Village are as follows: Land Survey No. Extent (in Hectares) 695 Part 3710.88.5 701 48.00.5 760/1 90.23.0 760/3 29.00.0 760/2 0.79.5 785/2 0.87.0 825/2 1.38.0 9.The boundaries of the reserve forest were also indicated elaborately in the said notification. It was also stated in the notification that pathways which were found even before the draft notification issued under Section 4 referred to earlier will be continued to be permitted to be used by public of the said road. It is the statutory notification dated 4.2.2010 was challenged by the same association (petitioner in W.P.No.731 of 2007). That writ petition when it came up on 21.4.2010, the learned Judge incharge of admission posed the following questions before the counsel appearing for the petitioner, which reads as follows: "2.Writ petition has been filed by M/s.Sirumalai Pazhathotta Vivasayigal Sangam. Petitioner is called upon to submit the following:- (i)Petitioner has to explain as to how the writ petition is maintainable by Sangam when individuals claim rights. (ii)Petitioner has to explain their pre-existing right in the property so as to challenge the Notification. (iii)The claim is based on the proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 2.4.1968 and that is with regard to Survey No.879. The Notification which is under challenge does not include Survey No.879. (iv)Along with the injunction petition (i.e.) M.P.No.2 of 2010 an Annexure giving details of the individuals has been filed. In that Annexure, the common Survey Number is shown as 879, whereas the allotted survey Numbers to each of the individuals is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ totallly different. The petitioner has to explain the inconsistency." The respondents were also directed to file a counter affidavit. Subsequently it was directed to be posted along with other writ petitions. 10.The very same notification came to be challenged by one Renganayaki and 27 others in W.P.No.10563 of 2010. That writ petition was admitted on 12.5.2010. Pending the writ petition, the same counsel who had appeared in the Association case pleaded before the learned judge that though the petitioners were members of the said association, their names were not included in the annexure filed in W.P.No.731 of 2007 and she sought for an interim order as was granted in W.P.No.731 of 2007. This conduct of the counsel is highly objectionable. In W.P.No.731 of 2007 the association was aggrieved by the draft notification and subsequently when the very same association filed W.P.No.8103 of 2010 it was not even admitted by this court. This court had posed the questions to the counsel which was set out above. In that writ petition, the challenge was to the final notification, dated 4.2.2010. Therefore, in this Writ Petition when the challenge was to the final notification, it was improper for the counsel referring to the previous order for obtaining the order of status quo. It must also be noted that though the said writ petition was filed in the name of another counsel (Mr.Christoper Vijay), it was argued by M/s.Selvi George, who is the counsel for the association in the other two writ petitions. Further the matter was also moved during the summer vacation. This conduct of the counsel in filing writ petition in the name of the another counsel and seeking for an interim order, which was not given in favour of the association and also not bringing to the notice of this court about the court not granting of any interim order in W.P.No.8103 of 2010 was highly improper. 11.It must be stated that no counsel can mislead the court only for the purpose of getting an interim order. The circumstances pleaded by the counsel for getting the interim order and making reference to the earliest W.P.No.731 of 2007 was totally irrelevant since in the last three years there were change of circumstances and a final notification was also issued by the State Government declaring the lands as reserve forest which became the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition. 12.Subsequently, the last writ petition in W.P.No.15149 of 2010 was filed by M.Thangavel and 243 persons challenging the very same final notification. In the affidavit in paragraph 1, those persons have stated that they are also members of the petitioner association in W.P.Nos.731 of 2007 and 8103 of 2010. Since they were of the view that the association cannot maintain the writ petition, they have filed the writ petition with individual names. When that writ petition came up on 20.7.2010, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) gave an undertaking that the petitioners' possession will not be disturbed. Subsequently, the matter was directed to be posted along https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with the other writ petitions. 13.In view of the interconnectivity among the six writ petitions, they were heard together. While the first three writ petitions challenges the draft notification, the last three writ petitions challenges the final notification. When the matter came up for final disposal on 1.4.2011, the respondents were directed to file counter on 6.4.2011. Subsequently, on 12.4.2011, counter affidavit was filed. M/s.Selvi George, learned counsel sought for time to file a reply. Hence it was adjourned to 25.4.2011. In view of the intervening holidays, the matter was called after reopening of the court on 16.6.2011. When it came up on 16.6.2011, Mr.V.S.Sethuraman, learned counsel for the petitioners (who by then had become the Additional Advocate General-I) informed that he was no longer appearing for the petitioners. Thereafter, it was adjourned for more than two occasions. On 30.6.2011, the matter was argued on behalf of the department by Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, learned Advocate General leading Mr.K.M.Subramanian, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest). Though an attempt was made to seek further time, this court refused to grant the same. Thereafter, M/s.Selvi George filed written submissions in respect of all the six writ petitions. 14.The contentions raised by the petitioners were that they were the residents of Thenmalai, Thalakadai, Chinnakadai, Rottikadu and other small hamlets under the foothill of Sirumalai of Dindigul taluk. Their main avocation was agricultural. They are in possession and enjoyment of lands. The lands were originally barren lands without any use. The forefathers of the petitioners had reclaimed the lands by using physical labour. They have been cultivating the lands ever since the year 1958. They are cultivating banana, jack fruit, lemon, cashew nut and silk cotton, etc., They had allotted themselves different parcels of lands for personal cultivation. Their possession of lands was recognised by the revenue department by issuing B-memos. It was also entered into the village adangal of Sirumalai Village. Their possession were also recognised by the proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, dated 2.4.1968. The State Government had also sanctioned loan under the prevention of Soil Erosion scheme. The entire Sirumalai area originally belonged to Ammayanaicknoor Zamin. The Zamin was taken over under the Tamil Nadu Estate Abolition Act and that it should be correctly called as Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. It was also stated that the Assistant Settlement Officer has held that entire extent of R.S.No.879 should be registered as Suburbs Waste dry land and that the proceedings have reached finality. 15.It was also stated that each of the petitioners was in occupation of 5 to 6 acres of land. They are not growing any valuable timbers or forest products. The reserve forest is lying on the higher slopes and they are well demarcated and also is in control of the forest department. The provisions of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act are not applicable to the lands in question. It cannot be declared as reserve forest under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. The petitioners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ came to know that the Forest Tahsildar, Dindigul sent a proposal dated 24.3.2006 for inclusion of several lands under Section 16 of the Forest Act. The said recommendation included the lands held by the petitioners which are patta lands and classified in the revenue records a assessed waste as per the findings of the Assistant Settlement Officer. Originally the Tahsildar had recommended to include the survey No.879 to an extent of 1044.59 acres for proposed notification. At that stage, the association, i.e., the petitioner in W.P.Nos.731 of 2007 and 8103 of 2010 filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5506 of 2006 and seeks to forbear the respondents from notifying the lands situated in Sirumalai village under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. That writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State Government to consider the report sent by the District Forest Officer on 1.9.2006 and to pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the directions, an order dated 2.11.2006 came to be passed which is set out above and that became the subject matter of W.P.No.731 of 2007 filed by the association and W.P.Nos.2440 of 2007 and 3259 of 2007 filed by individuals. 16.It was further stated that even before the disposal