IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16440 of 2008(F)
1. K.N.DEVADATHAN, SRIVILAS, SANGEETHA ROAD
... Petitioner
2. CHANDRIKA, CHANDRIKA VILAS, ALAYAKKAD
Vs
1. STATE OF KERLA REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FOREST &
3. THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER, PALAKKAD.
For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :10/06/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
.......................
W.P.(C).16440/2008
.......................
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner purchased an extent of 11 acres 55
cents of property comprised in survey Nos. 40/1 and
357/95 of Kinavalloor Amsom Parali, under Exts.P1
and P2 documents. The vendor of the petitioner had
obtained the same as assignee from Kunhunni Nair,
who in turn had taken the property from Subramanya
Iyer, who allegedly got it from Poomully mana.
Kunhunni Nair had filed an application as O.A.170/77
and certificate of purchase was issued in favour of
Kunhunni Nair. Forest officials were not parties to
the proceedings before the Land Tribunal.
Subsequently, the State sought for a review of order
passed by the Land Tribunal in O.A.170/77. Review
was allowed and ultimately the order was affirmed by
the Supreme Court itself. Net result of these
proceedings was that the complainant became unable
to assert any title over the property which was
eligible to be treated as land vested in the
Government.
W.P.(C).16440/2008
2
2. According to the respondents, land was eligible
to be treated as a private forest vested in terms of
the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment)
Act, 1920. Even if the contentions of the petitioner
are appreciated, he obviously does not have a
vestige of right over the property. Though the
review petition filed by the State was allowed as
early as on 30.6.1988, property in question could be
taken possession of by the respondents only in 2008.
In other words, petitioners had the benefit of
collecting yield from the property for a period of
almost 20 years after it became clear that he had no
title to the same. This is apart from the fact that
they had benefit of the property from 1981 to 1988.
3. Petitioners approached this Court earlier in
Writ Petition No.8502/2008 for a direction to the
respondents to hand over possession of the property
covered by Exts.P1 and P2 to enable them to take
W.P.(C).16440/2008
3
the yield there from. Writ petition was dismissed
under Ext.P10 judgment holding that the land in
question is a vested private forest and possession of
the same is already vested in the State.
Subsequently respondents took steps to auction the
right to collect yield from the property and there
upon, present writ petition has been filed seeking a
declaration that the petitioners are entitled to cut
and remove the rubber trees planted in the property.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned special Government Pleader.
5. That the property belongs to the State and is
vested in the same is no longer open to controversy.
This fact has again been reaffirmed in Ext.P10
judgment. The plea made by the petitioners for a
right to cut and remove the rubber trees planted by
them, allegedly in the year 1981 also is
misconceived. On a review petition filed by the
W.P.(C).16440/2008
4
State in relation to the order passed by the Land
Tribunal being allowed, it came about that the
assignor of the petitioners also was declared to
have no title to the property. Consequently the
petitioners also became disabled from asserting any
right to the property vested in the Government.
Therefore, there is no merit in the further plea
raised by the petitioners that they should be given
a chance to remove the trees because they were
planted in the year 1981. Writ petition is bereft of
merit. Hence, the same is dismissed.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs