Supreme Court Upholds Forest Reservation: Tamil Nadu Govt. vs. Arulmighu Kallalagar Temple (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: November 06, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 1141
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a temple claim ownership over a forest area that has been declared a reserved forest by the government? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a dispute between the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Arulmighu Kallalagar Temple regarding the ownership of Alagar Hills. The core issue was whether the government’s notification declaring the hills as a reserved forest was valid, and whether the temple had a legitimate claim to the land. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta.

Case Background

The dispute began when devotees of the Arulmighu Kallalagar Temple filed a suit (O.S. No. 178 of 1982) in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Madurai, claiming that the entire forest area of Alagar Hills belonged to the temple’s presiding deity. They argued that while the temple was handed over to a committee, the forest area was not. The temple itself filed a separate suit (O.S. No. 171 of 1987) seeking possession of the Alagar Hills and an injunction against the government from disturbing the underground water reserves. The government, on the other hand, maintained that Alagar Hills were a reserved forest, notified as such in 1883.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court dismissed both suits, O.S. No. 171 of 1987 and O.S. No. 178 of 1982, holding that the temple and the devotees failed to provide evidence of ownership over Alagar Hills. The trial court upheld the government’s claim that the hills were a reserved forest since 1881, relying on the 1883 notification under Section 25 of the Madras Forest Act, 1882. The High Court of Judicature at Madras reversed the trial court’s decision, ruling that the 1883 notification was invalid because the procedure under Sections 6 and 8 of the Madras Forest Act, 1882, had not been followed. The High Court also accepted the temple’s argument of a lost grant, concluding that the temple had proven its title over Alagar Hills.

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around the interpretation and application of the Madras Forest Act, 1882. Key provisions include:

• Section 3: Empowers the Government to constitute a reserved forest.
• Section 4: Requires the Government to publish a notification in the Official Gazette when proposing to constitute any land as a reserved forest, specifying the details of such land.
• Section 6: Mandates the Forest Settlement Officer to publish a proclamation after the notification under Section 4, specifying property details and inviting objections from interested parties.
• Section 8: Relates to the inquiry to be conducted under Section 6.
• Section 16: Requires a notification declaring the forest as reserved after disposal of claims under Section 6.
• Section 25: “The Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare any forest which has been reserved by order of the Government previous to the day on which this Act comes into force to be a reserved forest under this Act: Provided that if the rights of the Government or of private persons to or over any land or forest produce in such forest have not been inquired into, settled and recorded in manner which the Government thinks sufficient, the same shall be inquired into settled and recorded in the manner provided by this Act for reserved forest, before the date on which the notification declaring the forest to be reserved takes effect. All questions decided, orders issued and records prepared in connection with the reservation of such forest shall be deemed to have been decided, issued and prepared hereunder, and the provisions of this Act relating to reserved forest shall apply to such forests.” This section allows the government to declare previously reserved forests as reserved under this Act.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are as follows:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the Notification dated 11.10.1883 was illegal and void for non-observance of the provisions of the Madras Forest Act, 1882.
2. Whether the High Court was right in presuming a lost grant in favour of the temple.
3. Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the suit was not barred by limitation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

The court emphasized that the High Court had erred in its interpretation of the Madras Forest Act, 1882, by confusing notifications issued under Section 4 and Section 25. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 25 applies to forests that were already reserved by the government before the Act came into force, and therefore, the procedural requirements of Sections 6 and 8 were not applicable. The court also noted that the temple failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove its title over the Alagar Hills. The court stated, “The trial Court is right in holding that the Respondent miserably failed in producing any material to prove its title.” The court further clarified, “We do not agree that the respondent was in continuous possession under an assertion of title as there is no evidence on record to reach such a conclusion. The presumption of lost grant is therefore not permissible.” The court also stated, “Due to the misconception that Order No.189 issued under Section 4 of the Act is applicable to Alagarmalai, the High Court proceeded further to hold that the inquiry under Sections 6 and 8 have not been conducted.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Government Notification No. 187 dated 11.10.1883, declaring Alagar Hills as a reserved forest.
• The Court clarified that Section 25 of the Madras Forest Act, 1882, applies to forests that were already reserved before the Act came into force, and therefore, the procedural requirements of Sections 6 and 8 are not applicable.
• The Court rejected the High Court’s finding that the temple had proven its title over Alagar Hills and that the presumption of a lost grant was permissible.
• The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the specific provisions of the law when dealing with forest reservations.
• The Forest Department shall permit a 50 ft. pathway to reach all the spots and shrines from the foothills for which the earmarked area of 18.3032 hectares of land can be used.
• No non-forest activities shall be permitted within the 18.3032 hectares of land.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the Forest Department shall permit a 50 ft. pathway to reach all the spots and shrines from the foothills, using the earmarked area of 18.3032 hectares of land. No non-forest activities are allowed within this area.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not applicable in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the notification under Section 25 of the Madras Forest Act, 1882, is valid for forests that were already reserved before the Act came into force and that the procedural requirements of Sections 6 and 8 are not applicable to such notifications. The Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of Section 25 and its distinction from Section 4 of the Madras Forest Act, 1882. This judgment also reaffirms the conditions under which a presumption of lost grant can be made, emphasizing the need for continuous possession under an assertion of title. There is no change in the previous position of the law, but the judgment clarifies the application of the law.