{"id":153996,"date":"2009-09-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009"},"modified":"2014-04-06T22:52:49","modified_gmt":"2014-04-06T17:22:49","slug":"mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mujeeb Rahman vs The District Collector on 16 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Mujeeb Rahman vs The District Collector on 16 September, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED :  16\/09\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN\n\nW.P.(MD)Nos.4409 to 4414 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2009\nand 2 of 2009\n\nMujeeb Rahman                        ...  Petitioner in W.P.4409 of 2009\nT.Lukman                              ...  Petitioner in W.P.4410 of\n2009\nPallipattu Thomban Riyad              ...  Petitioner in W.P.4411 of 2009\nMujeeb Rahman                         ...  Petitioner in W.P.4412 of 2009\nT.Lukman                              ...  Petitioner in W.P.4413 of\n2009\nPallipattu Thomban Riyad              ...  Petitioner in W.P.4414 of 2009\n\nVs\n\n1.The District Collector,\n   Dindigul District,\n   Collectorate Building,\n   Dindigul.\n\n2.The District Forest Officer,\n   Dindigul District,\n   Collectorate Buildings,\n   Dindigul.\n\n3.The Ranger,\n   Dindigul District.\n\n4.The Tahsildar,\n    Dindigul District.\n\n5.The Executive  Engineer,\n   Agricultural Department,\n   In-charge of Soil Consideration, Dindigul District.\n\n6.The Personal Assistant to the\n    The District Collector,\n    Dindigul..\n\n7.Vijayakumar\n8.M.V.Murugan\n9.Pandianathan Baskaran                             ... Respondents<\/pre>\n
Prayer in W.P(MD)Nos.4409 to 4411 of 2009: Writ Petition has been filed
\nunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a
\nwrit of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to invoke the Rule 10 of the
\nTamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Rules 1957 to cancel the cutting
\norder issued by the 1st respondent dated 04.02.2009 S.R.No.29\/08\/E3, and
\nconsequently order, dated 16.02.2009 (internal communication between the 2nd and
\n3rd respondent) in S.C.No.7159\/2008-D and 7153\/08D passed by the 2nd respondent
\nand the order of the 2.3.2009 passed by the 3rd respondent in S.C.No.7159\/2008\/D
\nand 7153\/08\/D in favour of the 8th respondent in pandrimalai village Authoor
\nTaluk, Dindigul District in S.No.835\/24 to an extent of 121.29 Acres based on
\nthe appeal submitted by the petitioners before them.\n<\/p>\n
\tPrayer in W.P(MD)Nos.4412 to 4414 of 2009: Writ Petition has been filed
\nunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a
\nwrit of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to invoke the Rule 10 of the
\nTamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Rules 1957 to cancel the cutting
\norder issued by the 1st respondent dated 04.02.2009 S.R.No.29\/08\/E3, and
\nconsequently order, dated 16.02.2009 (internal communication between the 2nd and
\n3rd respondent) in S.C.No.7159\/2008-D and 7153\/08D passed by the 2nd respondent
\nand the order of the 2.3.2009 passed by the 3rd respondent in S.C.No.7159\/2008\/D
\nand 7153\/08\/D in favour of the 8th respondent in pandrimalai village Authoor
\nTaluk, Dindigul District in S.No.836\/2 to an extent of 21.33 Acres based on the
\nappeal submitted by the petitioners before them dated 18.05.2009.\n<\/p>\n
!For Petitioner           ...  M\/r.V.R.Venkatesan.\n^For Respondents 1 to 6   ...  Mr.K.Balasubramaniam\n                               Additional Government Pleader\nFor Respondents No.7 & 8  ...  Mr.M.Ajmal Khan\nFor 9th respondent        ...  Mr.T.A.Ebenasan\n\n\n:COMMON ORDER\n\n\tHeard both sides.\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t2.In the above six writ petitions, common facts and law are involved and
\nthe respondents are also common in all the writ petitions and hence, with the
\nconsent of  both parties, all the writ petitions were taken together for final
\ndisposal.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The properties in Survey Nos.835\/31 acres 1.29 cents, S.No.784\/143C-
\nacre 11.52 cents, S.No.835\/15-  acre 19.72 cents, S.No.835\/19 – acre 17.31
\ncents, S.No.835\/24- acre 121.29 cents, S.No.836\/2 – acre 21.33 cents, S.No.641-
\nacre  7.51 cents, S.No.646- acre 5.64 cents, S.No.774- acare 5.85 cents,
\nS.No.775- acre 8.74 cents, S.No.784\/8C- acre 13.01 cents, S.No.784\/8B acre 37.05
\ncents,  S.No.784\/8D- acre 12.99 cents, S.No.784\/14D- acre 12.01 cents at
\nPandrimalai and in Manalur village in S.No.195\/2- acre 3.98 cents, S.No.200-acre
\n1.39 cents,  of a total extent of 336.37 acres situate at Pandrimalai and in
\nManalur village belonged to the 9th respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.It is admitted that the properties are estate lands with trees and the
\npetitioners, in all the cases, entered into an agreement of sale with the
\noriginal owner viz., the 9th respondent, for the sale of lands, by agreement,
\ndated 30.08.2008 and as per the agreement of sale, 339 acres situate in various
\nsurvey Numbers mentioned above, were agreed to be sold for valid consideration
\nof Rs.50,000\/- per acre and as per the agreement, the petitioners have also
\nagreed to purchase the properties for the said purchase price, immediately free
\nfrom all encumbrance. Therefore, supplementary agreement has been entered into
\nbetween the petitioners and the 9th respondent, dated 27.11.2008 and thereafter,
\na registered sale deed was also executed by the 9th respondent in favour of the
\npetitioners on 09.03.2009 conveying various items of properties stated therein.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.According to the petitioners, they have purchased not only the lands,
\nbut also the trees grown on that lands. It is the further case of the
\npetitioners that later they came to know on 16.06.2008 that the 9th respondent
\nhad entered into an agreement with the 7th respondent for the sale of trees in
\nrespect of trees grown in Survey Nos.835\/24 and 836\/2 and on 15.07.2008, the 9th
\nrespondent also gave a registered power of attorney in favour of the 8th
\nrespondent, authorising him to cut the trees grown on those lands and apply for
\ngetting necessary permits from the respondents 2 and 3 and without disclosing
\nthe earlier agreement of sale entered into by the 9th respondent with the 7th
\nrespondent, a sale deed was executed by the 9th respondent in favour of the
\npetitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Further, the 7th respondent applied for the grant of permits from the
\nrespondents 1 and 2 for cutting the trees, in pursuance to the agreement and on
\n04.02.2009, an order was issued by the first respondent in favour of the 8th
\nrespondent, who is the power agent of the 7th respondent and on 02.03.2009, an
\norder was passed by the 2nd respondent in respect of trees grown in Survey
\nNo.836\/2 and 835\/24 respectively. According to the petitioners, as per the sale
\ndeed, dated 09.03.2009, the petitioners became the absolute owners of the landed
\nproperties, which includes trees and therefore, the respondents 7 and 8 have no
\nright to cut and remove the trees as per the agreement of sale entered into with
\nthe 9th respondent.  On coming to know of the cutting order given by the
\nrespondents 1 and 2, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the District
\nCollector\/ 1st respondent and before the 2nd respondent under Rule 10 of the
\nTamil Nadu Hill Areas (Prevention of Trees) Rules 1957 and a show cause notice
\nwas given by the 2nd respondent to the 7th respondent why the cutting order
\nshould not be cancelled and thereafter, no action has been taken by the
\nrespondents 1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.It is further stated in the affidavit that the 7th respondent filed a
\nsuit O.S.No.100 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul, against the 9th
\nrespondent and Thiru.Mujeeb Rahman, who is the petitioner in W.P.(MD)Nos.4409 &
\n4412 of 2009, restraining them, preventing the plaintiff in that, suit from
\ncutting and removing the trees from the suit properties, as per the agreement,
\ndated 16.06.2008 and in that suit,all  the petitioners herein, were not parties,
\nexcept the petitioner in W.P.(MD)Nos.4409 & 4412 of 2009 and an injunction order
\nwas granted by the Sub Court, Dindigul and that was under challenge in
\nC.M.A.No.1 of 2009, on the file of the District Court, Dindigul and the same is
\npending before the District Court, Dindigul. As the petitioners have purchased
\nthe properties in pursuance to the agreement of sale, dated 30.08.2008 and
\n27.11.2008,  the petitioners have become the owners of the properties, which
\nincludes the trees grown on that properties and therefore, the 7th  respondent,
\nby suppressing the agreement of sale, got the cutting order issued by the
\nrespondents 1 and 2 on 04.02.2009 and 02.03.2009 and as the 7th respondent has
\nsuppressed the material facts about the agreement of sale and subsequent sale
\ndeed, the respondents 1 and 2 are having power to cancel the permission and
\nthough a show cause notice has been given by the 2nd respondent, no further
\naction has been taken and in these circumstance, the petitioners filed the above
\nwrit petitions, directing respondents 1 and 2 to invoke the Rule 10 of the Tamil
\nNadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Rules 1957 and  to cancel the cutting
\norder, dated 04.02.2009 issued by the 1st respondent and the order, dated
\n02.03.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The respondents 7 and 8  have filed the counter affidavit stating that
\nthe 7th respondent entered into an agreement of sale for cutting all the trees
\nfound in Survey Nos.835\/24 and 836\/2, of an extent of 142 acres and a registered
\npower of attorney was given by the 9th respondent in favour of the 8th
\nrespondent, directing the 8th respondent to cut and remove the trees and to
\napply for necessary permission from the respondents 1 and 2 for cutting the
\ntrees and on the basis of the agreement of general power, the 8th respondent has
\napplied for permit on 06.08.2008 seeking permission from the respondents 1 and 2
\nand permission was granted on 04.02.2009 and 02.03.2009, much before the sale
\ndeeds were executed in favour of the petitioners by the 9th respondent and
\ntherefore, the petitioners have no right to question the right of the
\nrespondents 7 and 8  to cut and remove the trees and as the respondents 7 and 8
\ntook steps to cut and remove the trees, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4412 of
\n2009 prevented them and hence, the CMA was filed in CMA.No.1 of 2009 and that is
\npending before the District Court, Dindigul and the petitioners have no right to
\nchallenge the order of the respondents 1 and 2 and if they are aggrieved by the
\norder of the respondents, they will have to establish their right, by filing
\nnecessary suits, in the civil courts and they have no right to seek the writ of
\nmandamus as prayed for in these writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr.V.R.Venkatesan,
\ncontended that admittedly, the respondents 7 and 8 have not cut and remove the
\ntrees as per the agreement, dated 16.06.2008. By virtue of the sale deed, dated
\n09.03.2009, the landed properties were sold to the petitioners by the 9th
\nrespondent and under those sale deeds not only the lands but also the trees,
\nwhich are attached to earth are also presumed to have been sold to the
\npetitioners and hence, the 7th respondent cannot claim any right over the trees,
\nby virtue of the agreement of sale in his favour, in respect of trees, having
\nregard to the fact that the lands were sold before the trees were cut down by
\nthe respondents 7 and 8.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.Mr.V.R.Venkatesan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
\nfurther submitted that as per Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, Unless
\na different intention is expressed or necessarily implied, a transfer of
\nproperty passes forthwith to the transferee all the interest which the
\ntransferor is then capable of passing in the property in the legal incidents
\nthereof.\n<\/p>\n
\tSuch incidents include, where the property is land, the easements annexed
\nthereto, the rents and profits thereof accruing after the transfer, and all
\nthings attached to the earth.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.Further as per interpretion clause 3 of the said Act, ” attached to the
\nearth”  means- (a) rooted in the earth, as in the case of trees and shrubs;
\nb.imbedded in the earth, as in the case of walls or buildings; or c. attached to
\nwhat is so imbedded for the permanent beneficial enjoyment of that to which it
\nis attached.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, contended that after the execution of the sale deed in their favour,
\nthe title to the trees also transferred to them and hence, the respondents 7 and
\n8 cannot claim any right over the trees.  Therefore, he contended that the
\nrespondents 1 and 2 should not have issued the impugned orders in favour of the
\nrespondents 7 and 9 as they have no right to the trees.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.Mr.V.R.Venkatesan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
\nalso relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 1968
\nAIR 612, in the case of Divisional Forest Officer, Sarahan Forest Division of
\nSimla Forest Circle, Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Daut and others,  wherein
\nit has been stated in para 6,  there can be no doubt that trees are capable of
\nbeing transferred apart from land, and if a person transfer trees or gives a
\nright to a person to cut trees and remove them it cannot be said that he has
\ntransferred land. But we are concerned with a different question and the
\nquestion is whether under S.11 of the Act trees are included within the
\nexpression “right”, title and interest of the land-owner in the land of the
\ntenancy”. It seems to us that this expression “right, title and interest of the
\nlandowner in the land” is wide enough to include trees standing on the land. It
\nis clear that under S.8 of the Transfer of Property Act, unless a different
\nintention is expressed or implied, transfer of land would include trees standing
\non it. It seems to us that we should construe S.11 in the same manner.\n<\/p>\n
and also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1991 ALLAHABAD 193 in the case
\nof Vishwa Nath and others vs. Ramraj and others, wherein it has been held that
\nthere may be a presumption that when land is transferred, all things attached to
\nthe earth, such as trees and shrubs, are also transferred along with the land in
\nview of the provisions of Section 8 read with S.3 of the Transfer of Property
\nAct, 1882.  But there can be no presumption in a case vice versa.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.On the other-hand, Mr.Ajmal Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the
\nrespondents 7 and 8 contended that after the agreement of sale entered into, by
\nthe 9th respondent with the 7th respondent, the 9th respondent ceased to be the
\nowner of the trees and hence, what has been conveyed by the 9th respondent to
\nthe petitioners are the landed properties alone without trees as the trees have
\nalready been sold to the 7th respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.He further submitted that immediately after the agreement of sale and
\nthe general power of attorney, executed by the 9th respondent, the respondents 7
\nand 8 applied for permit on 06.08.2008 and after conducting various enquiries
\nand obtaining reports from the various officers, orders were passed on
\n04.02.2009 and 02.03.2009 by the  2nd and 3rd respondents for cutting the trees
\nand hence, there is no infirmity in the cutting order passed.  Further, on the
\ndate of passing of the cutting order,  the sale deeds were not executed by the
\n9th respondent in favour of the petitioners and an agreement of sale in respect
\nof the immovable properties does not create any interest in the immovable
\nproperties and hence, on 04.02.2009 and 02.03.2009, the petitioners have no
\nright over the trees even assuming that under that sale deeds trees were also
\nconveyed to the petitioners. Therefore, he contended that on the date of passing
\nof cutting order, the 7th respondent was the lawful owner of the trees, by
\nvirtue of agreement of sale and hence, the cutting orders cannot be challenged.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.He further brought to my notice, the various provisions of the Tamil
\nNadu Hill Areas( Preservation of Trees) Rules 1957. As per Section 3 of the said
\nAct,  no person shall be cut or fall or remove any tree except as per rule
\nframed in that act and under Rule 10 permission granted can be cancelled or
\nmodified if the committee has reason to believe that any person to whom
\npermission was granted furnished the particulars which are materially incorrect
\nor has contravened any provisions of these rules or the conditions subject to
\nwhich permission was granted. As the respondents 7 and 8 did not contravene any
\nof the rules or have not suppressed any material particulars, the permission
\ncannot be cancelled or modified.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.Mr.M.Ajmahl Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7
\nand 8 also brought to my notice the recitals in the agreement, dated 27.11.2008
\nbetween the 9th respondent and the petitioners, wherein it has been stated that
\nthe possession has been handed over for limited purpose of residing and to do
\nthe work of removing the shrubs in the estate and Mr.Mujeeb Rahman, who is the
\nagreement holder or his servants were not permitted to cut the valuable trees
\nfrom the estate.  Relying on that passage in that agreement, Mr.M.Ajmal Khan,
\nthe learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7 and 8 submitted that it has
\nbeen specifically provided that trees should be cut only by the petitioners as
\nper the agreement and therefore, what has been sold to the petitioners is
\nactually the lands and not trees, and in any event, as the 7th respondent has
\npurchased the trees and entered into agreement, he is entitled to remove the
\ntrees and the subsequent sale deed in favour of the petitioners will not have
\nthe effect of preventing the 7th respondent from cutting the trees.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.Before going into the power of the respondents 1 and 2 to cancel or
\nmodify the cutting order, we will have to see what is the effect of the sale
\ndeeds in favour of the petitioners and whether under the sale deeds, the trees
\nwere also conveyed along with the lands, by virtue of section 8 of the Transfer
\nof Property Act, and if so, will it prevent the 7th respondent from cutting the
\ntrees.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.No doubt under Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, Unless the
\ndifferent intention is expressed or necessarily implied, a transfer of property
\npasses forthwith to the transferee all the interest which the transferor is then
\ncapable of passing in the property and in the legal incidents thereof, which
\nincludes all place attached to the earth.  Therefore, as per the above section,
\nunder a transfer of property, all the interest, which the transferor is then
\ncapable of passing in the property will be transferred.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.As rightly contended by Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, the learned counsel appearing
\nfor the respondents 7 and 8 that earlier to the date of the sale deed, the 7th
\nrespondent had entered into an agreement of sale for cutting of trees in two
\nsurvey numbers and therefore, while executing the sale deed the transferor has
\nno right to convey the trees, as he had already sold to the 7th respondent and
\nhe was not capable of transferring the trees on 09.03.2009.  Therefore, it was
\ncontended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7 and 8,
\nMr.M.Ajmal Khan, that under the sale deed, the trees could not have been
\ntransferred.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.To appreciate the contention of Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, the learned counsel
\nappearing for the respondents 7 and 8, we will have to ascertain whether under
\nthe sale deed, dated 09.03.2009, the 9th respondent sold the lands as well as
\nthe trees to the petitioners.  Though the petitioners entered into an agreement
\nof sale deeds, dated 30.08.2008 and 27.11.2008, under those agreements, they
\ncannot claim any interest in the immovable properties and if at all they can
\nclaim any interest in the immovable properties they can do so only under the
\nsale deed, dated 09.03.2009.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.In a case where the vendor purports to have sold the entire properties
\nbut actually there is some deficiencies either in respect of area or estate or
\nright, the rights of the purchaser, has been stated by Darts in his book- “On
\nvendors and purchasers” (8th edition)Vol. I, page 565 as follows: “The purchaser
\nwill be entitled to compensation for a deficiency in quantity even though the
\nestate is not sold professedly by measurement”.\n<\/p>\n
  \t” In Williams on Vendor and Purchaser (4th Edition page 725 it is stated
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
 “The purchaser therefore, is as a rule entitled if it turns that there is a
\nmere deficiency whether of area, estate or  right and whether substantial or not
\nbetween the property described in the contract and that offered in fulfilment,
\nthereof to enforce the specific performance of the contract, taking such
\ninterest in the property sold as the vendor has and receiving compensation for
\nthe deficiency.  For example where a vendor described the land sold as
\ncontaining a much greater quantity than its actual area, he was obliged at the
\npurchaser’s suit to convey what estate he had and to allow compensation for the
\ndeficiency”.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.Further in Halsbury’s Laws of England Vol.29, paragraph 669, is as
\nfollows: “After completion of the contract, the transaction is at an end as
\nbetween vendor and purchaser and as a general rule, no action either at law or
\nin equity can be maintained by either party against the other for damages or
\ncompensation on account of errs as to quantity or quality of the property sold
\nunless such error amounts to a breach of some contract, or warranty contained in
\nthe conveyance itself, or unless some fraud has been practised by the
\npurchaser.”\n<\/p>\n
\t23.The above passages were discussed in the judgment reported in 1951(2)
\nMLJ page 611 in the case of M.Delli Gramani and another vs. C.R.Ramachandran and
\nin that case it has been held that in the absence of fraud on the part of the
\nvendor in case of deficiency of property conveyed under the sale deed and where
\nspecific boundaries were given the purchaser has no right to claim compensation.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.Further as per Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, the rights
\nand liabilities of buyers and seller have been stated and as per Section
\n55(1)(a) the seller  is bound to disclose to the buyer any material defect in
\nthe property or in the seller’s title thereto,  of which the seller is, and the
\nbuyer is not, aware, and which the buyer could not with ordinary care discover:\n<\/p>\n
\t25.Further, it is stated in the said section that any omission to make
\nsuch disclosures as are mentioned under section para 1 clause (a) and para (5)
\nclause (5) is fraudulent. As per section 55(1)(a) when the seller did not
\ndisclose any material defect in the property which buyer is not aware of and
\ncould not with ordinary care discover, the same can be treated as fraudulent
\none.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.In this case, according to the learned counsel appearing for the
\npetitioners, Mr.V.R.Venkatesan,   they are not aware of the agreement of sale in
\nrespect of the trees entered into between the 9th respondent and the 7th
\nrespondent and had they known the same, they would not have entered into the
\nsale transactions by paying huge consideration and hence, fraud has been
\ncommitted on them.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.Though, it is not necessary for me, to go into the aspect of fraud
\nalleged to have been committed on the petitioners by the 9th respondent, having
\nregard to limited purpose of arriving at a decision, whether the petitioners are
\nentitled to relief prayed for on the ground that the permits were obtained by
\nsuppressing the material particulars by the 7th respondent, I have to give a
\nfinding what is the nature of property that was conveyed under the sale deed,
\ndated 09.03.2009 and whether it includes the trees also .\n<\/p>\n
\t28.Admittedly, in the sale deed, there is no mention about the trees.  As
\ncontended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, trees attached
\nto the earth are also immovable properties and hence, they ought to have been
\nmentioned as they have their own value.  Under Section 27 of the Indian Stamp
\nAct –\n<\/p>\n
\t“The consideration and all other facts and circumstances affecting the
\nchargeability of any instrument with duty, or the amount of the duty with which
\nit is chargeable, shall be fully and truly set forth therein”.\n<\/p>\n
\t29.Admittedly, the trees have got potential values and therefore, while
\nexecuting the sale deeds, if  the trees are also conveyed, it must have been
\nmentioned and value of the trees must have been stated in the instrument of
\nsale.\n<\/p>\n
\t30.It is further evident by Rule 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention
\nof Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules 1968, wherein it has been stated that in
\nany instrument, number of items of property, the market value of each of the
\nitems shall be specified separately.\n<\/p>\n
\t31.Rule 5 deals with the principles of determination of market value and
\nas a matter of fact in the sale deed dated 09.03.2009 declaration has been made
\nby the 9th  respondent about the nature of properties, which were sold and a
\nperusal of that statement given under Rule 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp
\n(Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules 1968, would make it clear
\nthat, market value was arrived at only for the lands and no value has been fixed
\nfor the trees grown on the lands.\n<\/p>\n
\t32.Thus, it is made clear that under the sale deed, dated.09.03.2009, only
\nthe lands were sold.  This is fortified by the fact that even on 16.06.2008, the
\n9th respondent has sold the right of cutting trees in favour of the 7th
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t33.Further the 9th respondent has executed a registered power of attorney
\nin favour of the 8th respondent on 15.07.2008, wherein it has been specifically
\nstated that the power has been given for cutting trees marked and to get
\nnecessary permission from the respondents 1 and 2.  Therefore, if the
\npetitioners are prudent persons they would have applied for encumbrance, while
\nascertaining the right of the 9th respondent to convey the property and  they
\nwould have found out that already the trees were sold.  Therefore, from these
\nfacts,  prima facie  it is made clear that what has been sold under the sale
\ndeeds and  only the lands not trees.\n<\/p>\n
\t34.Further, even admitting the case of the petitioners that they have
\npurchased the properties on the basis of representation given by the 9th
\nrespondent that along with the lands, trees were also conveyed and later they
\ncame to know that even earlier to that, the trees were sold by the 9th
\nrespondent to the 7th respondent, it can be inferred that fraud has been
\ncommitted on the petitioners by the 9th respondent by making false
\nrepresentation without disclosing the earlier agreement of sale of trees and in
\nthat event, the petitioners are only entitled  to file the suit for damages and
\nthey have no right to challenge the cutting orders granted by the respondents 1
\nand 2.\n<\/p>\n
\t35.According to me, under Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Hills (Preservation of
\nof Trees)1957, permission can be cancelled only when the person whom permission
\nwas granted and gave a materially incorrect or has contravened any provisions of
\nthese rules the conditions subject to which the permission was granted and in
\nthis case, it cannot be stated that the respondents 7 and 8 have suppressed the
\nparticulars, while obtaining the permission or violated any condition subject to
\nthe permission was granted.  Hence, the permission orders issued by the
\nrespondents 1 and 2 in favour of the respondents 7 and 8 cannot be challenged by
\nthe petitioners. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the facts that the 9th
\nrespondent has committed fraud on them, it is always open to them to file
\nnecessary suits claiming compensation and if any suit is filed, the suit without
\nbeing influenced any of the observations made in these writ petition, the same
\nshall be disposed on the basis of the evidence and pleadings by the learned
\nJudge.\n<\/p>\n
\t36.In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed. However, it was
\nrepresented by Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the
\nrespondents 7 and 8 that they are not able to cut and remove the trees by reason
\nof the injunction order passed in these writ petitions and the cutting orders
\npermitted the respondents 7 and 8 to cut and remove the trees only upto
\n07.09.2009 and in the event of the writ petitions are dismissed,  direction may
\nbe issued to the respondents 2 and 3 to extend the period to enable the
\nrespondents 7 and 8 to cut and remove the above trees.\n<\/p>\n
\t37.As the writ petitions are dismissed, the respondents 2 and 3 are
\ndirected to grant sufficient time to the respondents 7 and 8 to cut and remove
\nthe trees, as per the cutting orders, dated 04.02.2009 and 02.03.2009 issued by
\nthe respondents 2 and 3 respectively, in favour of the respondents 7 and 8.
\nConsequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
To,<\/p>\n
1.The District Collector,
\n   Dindigul District,
\n   Collectorate Building,
\n   Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n
2.The District Forest Officer,
\n   Dindigul District,
\n   Collectorate Buildings,
\n   Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Ranger,
\n   Dindigul District.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Tahsildar,
\n    Dindigul District.\n<\/p>\n
5.The Executive  Engineer,
\n   Agricultural Department,
\n   In-charge of Soil Consideration,
\n   Dindigul District.\n<\/p>\n
6.The Personal Assistant to the
\n    The District Collector,
\n    Dindigul..\n<\/p>\n
7.The Additional Government Pleader,
\n    Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n    Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Mujeeb Rahman vs The District Collector on 16 September, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16\/09\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN W.P.(MD)Nos.4409 to 4414 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2009 and 2 of 2009 Mujeeb Rahman … Petitioner in W.P.4409 of 2009 T.Lukman … Petitioner in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-153996","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMujeeb Rahman vs The District Collector on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mujeeb Rahman vs The District Collector on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-06T17:22:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mujeeb Rahman vs The District Collector on 16 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-06T17:22:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4469,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Mujeeb Rahman vs The District Collector on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-06T17:22:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mujeeb Rahman vs The District Collector on 16 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mujeeb Rahman vs The District Collector on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mujeeb Rahman vs The District Collector on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-06T17:22:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mujeeb Rahman vs The District Collector on 16 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-06T17:22:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009"},"wordCount":4469,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009","name":"Mujeeb Rahman vs The District Collector on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-06T17:22:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mujeeb-rahman-vs-the-district-collector-on-16-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mujeeb Rahman vs The District Collector on 16 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153996","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=153996"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153996\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153996"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153996"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153996"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}