The present writ petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the District Forest Officer, Coimbatore Forest Division, the first respondent herein, on the ground that the first petitioner, being an agricultural graduate, after retiring from service as a Principal Scientist in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, has decided to spend his post-retirement life in farming activities. Besides, his wife, who is the second petitioner herein, is also hailing from an agricultural family and therefore, they have resolved to devote their full time for cultivating the farm land, which is located inside the reserve forest. Although the respondents are permitting the persons on motor-cycles, bi-cycles and by foot to trespass the barricade freely without any difficulty, the petitioners and their family members, during the cultivation period, are visiting their land to carry on the agricultural operation and bringing their produce. As the distance from the main road to the land of the petitioners is about six kilometres, the first petitioner made a representation on 17.9.2013 along with the application to the first respondent requesting to grant standing permission for frequent usage of Sembukkarai road by their vehicles to have access to the farm lands for agricultural operations. When the respondent-Forest Department has laid a pucca black-top road running through the reserve forest land connecting the twin villages with the Coimbatore-Mannarkad Highway and also permitted the tribals to use the said forest road as well as the devotees to visit the temple in Sembukkarai during festival occasions, the legitimate landholders like the petitioners are not allowed to use the said forest road to have access to their farm lands for agricultural operations. However, on receipt of the said application, the first respondent, in his letter dated 25.11.2013, sought for some more supporting documents relating to the land and revenue records including the general power of attorney given by the family members of the first petitioner. Again the first petitioner sent a representation on 15.1.2014 enclosing the copies of the relevant documents along with the explanation followed by several reminders on 27.1.2014, 4.3.2014, 31.7.2014, 2.9.2014 etc., to the second and third respondents. But all of a sudden, the first petitioner received a letter from the office of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.2412/2015/A2 dated 11.8.2015 informing him that the second respondent had forwarded his petition for proper consideration and thereupon he was also further asked to correspond with the first respondent for further consideration of his petition. On this basis, the first petitioner sent another application on 10.2.2014 under the Right to Information Act to the Public Relations Officer, District Forest Office, Coimbatore Forest Division seeking information about any rule banning the use of the forest Mangarai-Sembukkarai road by farmers holding lands in the twin villages even if they are not residing there and other relevant information. But the first respondent has sent the reply in her proceedings dated 27.2.2016 rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking permission to use the forest Mangarai-Sembukkarai road stating that except the tribal people residing in the twin villages, no other person will be given permission to use the said forest road. The said approach adopted by the first respondent is totally untenable and unsustainable.
2. Adding further, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the petitioners have been issued with the patta by the revenue authorities, that shows that they are the owners of the land. As such the forest department cannot refuse to grant permission to use the forest road so as to reach their land for the purpose of cultivation and also for bringing back the agricultural produce. When many people belonging to the nearby villages are permitted to go to their respective lands to carry on the agricultural operation, the first respondent could have considered the little more request of the petitioners to use their vehicles, namely, two wheelers, four wheelers, tractors to reach their forest land, as they find it difficult to cross six kilometres from the main road to their land everyday.
3. Although this Court understands the difficulty expressed by the petitioners, the cogent and convincing reasons adduced by the first respondent in the impugned order cannot be found fault with. The reason is that although the tribals living inside the forest are permitted to use the forest road, the petitioners cannot compare them with the tribals living inside the forest. Another reason given by the first respondent is that if the petitioners and their family members are permitted to use the vehicles on the forest road to have access to their agricultural land, the wild animals like elephants, tigers, leopards, bears, bisons, etc., would be misdirected to the nearby villages due to the frequent usage of the vehicles on the forest road, with the result the innocent villagers and the tribals would be mostly affected due to the man-animal conflict. Moreover, when the petitioners and their family members have been allowed to have access to their land by foot, they can always continue to use the forest road so as to have ingress and egress to their agricultural land without using the vehicles. Although the petitioners repeatedly assert their right to use the forest road with vehicles, they have all the more forgotten about the very survival/safety of the wild animals too in the natural habitat surrounding the forest road in question. Considering these aspects only, the first respondent has rejected the request of the petitioners for permission to use the forest road through vehicles. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P.No.4291 of 2017 is also dismissed. No costs.