Kanyakumari District Planters Association v. Tamil Nadu Pays/Territoire Inde Type de cour Autres Date Avr 5, 2002 Source UNEP, InforMEA Nom du tribunal High Court of Judicature at Madras Juge Sathasivam Numéro de référence W.P. 7275/1985 Langue Anglais Sujet Plantes cultivées, Forêts Mot clé Production végétale Gestion forestière/conservation des forêts Résumé The petitioners in this case complained that, inter alia, the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 was ultra vires and unconstitutional, if it was held to be applicable to plantations and cultivated lands. They argued that the Act would not apply to plantations, because a plantation by its very nature was developed by contribution of human efforts, adopting agricultural and cultivation practices whereas the Act was intended to prevent indiscriminate destruction of private forests. The petitioners were cultivating rubber trees as the major holding. They contended that the Act could not apply to a land which was cultivated with rubber and other agricultural crops. The respondents argued that a number of private rubber estates were situated in the midst of the reserved forest. There was lot of cases in the district where private estate owners had encroached upon reserved forest land in vast areas and planted rubber trees. The rubber plantations contained not only rubber trees, but also other miscellaneous trees, like rosewood, teak, aini, marudam and thomba and wildlife of different species. To preserve the trees from indiscriminate cutting by private individuals, it was necessary to enact the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949. As per the provision of the Act, the land owners could not cut and remove timber without the previous permission of the concerned authority. The authorities concerned were granting permission if the application to cut the trees was in order. Therefore, the Act was not unconstitutional. The court analyzed the relevant legal provisions and jurisdiction related to forest management as well as literature defining the term “forest”. It also addressed all contentions by the petitioners that the impugned notifications were violative of several Articles of the Constitution of India. It referred to the existence of similar provisions in the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas Preservation of Trees Act, 1955 which enactment was applicable to the plantations such as tea, coffee, cardamom and prior permission was also required for felling of trees by the District Committee which was similar to that of the provision in the impugned Act. In conclusion, the court did not find any merit in the contentions raised in the writ petitions. Consequently they were dismissed. Texte intégral text.asp