- (1.) The Subject matter of these writ petitions is long pending with a chequered history and will probably continue to be so for some more time in view of the pendency of the proceedings before the statutory authorities at various stages under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, hereinafter described as "the Forest Act".
(2.) The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. The land in question comprises an extent of 3388.78 acres, which was part of Singampatti Zamin. By lease deed dated 12.2.1989 the Zamin granted the right to occupy in favour of the petitioner company for the purpose of cultivating Coffee, Tea, Coco, Sincona, Cardamom, pepper, rubber and other products other than timber trees for a period of 99 years. With the coming into f`orce of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and conversion of ryotwari) Act, hereinafter called Act 26 of 1948, the Board of Revenue by is order dated 13.8.1958 declared that the Company was not entitled to any rights or to remain in possession after 19.2.1952. The Board in exercise its power under Section 19-A of the said Act, directed that the lessee/petitioner shall remain in possession of the entire lease area for the rest of the lease period subject to all the conditions of lease. Certain additional terms and conditions were subsequently added alleged to be in public interest, as follows:- "(i) The company shall not clear any portion of the catchment area of Kusanguli measuring 970 acres at the south east corner the lease area within the boundaries indicated by thick red line in sketch attached, as the clear felling of this area will be detrimental to forest conservancy and will also lead to soil erosion in the catchment area of the Manimuthar River; (ii) the said company shall, in the rest of the area leased out to it, arrange to clothe rapidly with vegetations any extent cleared by it and adopt and maintain effective measures for the prevention of soil erosion; and (iii) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the lease deed dated 12.2.1989, as subsequently amended, if the Company violates any of the terms and conditions of the lease and does not conform to the conditions (i) and (ii) specified above, the lease is liable to be cancelled by the State Government and the State Government may re-enter and take possession of the entire lease area and the Company will not be entitled to any compensation whatsoever thereof."
(3.) In the mean time, the Government also invoked its power under the Forest Act and issued a proclamation under Section 6 expressing its intention to declare the area as reserved forest. The petitioners filed a Claim petition as provided under the Act and claimed rights of occupancy, ownership and other rights. The Forest Settlement Officer split the claim into two separate petitions namely, Claim No.5 as regards the claim of right of occupancy and Claim No.6 relating to the other rights such as right of way, etc. The Forest Settlement Officer allowed the claim of right of occupancy as claimed by the petitioner and excluded the land from the limits of the proposed reserved Forest. The Government filed an appeal. The learned District Judge, Tirunelveli, allowed the appeal and remitted the proceedings to the Forest Settlement Officer on the ground that the Department did not have the opportunity for filing their counter statement. Both sides now represent that the proceedings are still pending before the Forest Settlement Officer. It is also admitted by the respondents that in view of the pendency of the proceedings on the Claim petition filed by the petitioners, no notification has been issued under Section 16 of the Forest Act declaring the forest as reserved forest.;