IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33580 of 2010(V)
1. P.M.KESAVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. DIVISIONAL OF FOREST OFFICER,
3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER,
4. THE FORESTER,
5. VILLAGE OFFICER,PANATHADY VILLAGE,.
For Petitioner :SMT.REENA ABRAHAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :16/11/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 33580 of 2010 V
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner submits that, as per Ext.P1 patta, he had
title over 3 acres of land situated in R.S.No.314/A of
Panathady village. It is stated that subsequently 1.25 acres of
land was treated as vested forest and the petitioner continues
in possession and ownership of the balance 1.75 acres of
land. According to the petitioner, in order to avail of financial
assistance from a commercial bank, he wanted to mortgage
the property and the bank insisted that the petitioner should
produce a No Objection Certificate from the forest authorities
for the reason that the land is near to a vested forest.
2. It is stated that thereupon he made Ext.P4
application to the second respondent. It is the case of the
petitioner that though Ext.P5 report was submitted by the
fourth respondent confirming that the petitioner has title and
possession over 1.75 acres, on an unfounded allegation that
W.P.(C) No.33580/10
: 2 :
the petitioner has trespassed into the forest land, his request
for NOC was rejected by Ext.P6 order. It is challenging
Ext.P6 and seeking a direction for issuance of NOC, this writ
petition is filed.
3. Learned Government Pleader has obtained
instructions in the matter. According to him, the petitioner’s
land is situated in R.S.No.314/A of Panathady village, which
is situated adjacent to a vested forest. It is stated that on
receipt of Ext.P4 application, the land held by the petitioner
was surveyed by the forest authorities and that it was found
that the petitioner has encroached into the adjacent forest
land and is carrying on agricultural activities. It is stated that it
is on account of the above reason, the petitioner’s application
for NOC was rejected.
4. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has possession only over 1.75 acres of land, which
is fully covered by Ext.P1 patta. It is also submitted that his
application for NOC should not have been rejected relying
W.P.(C) No.33580/10
: 3 :
only on the unilateral survey conducted by the forest
authorities and without even the participation of the Revenue
officials.
5. As stated by the respondents, if the petitioner has
trespassed into the forest land and used any potion thereof,
the respondents cannot be faulted for what they have done.
However, it being a disputed factual issue, I feel a fresh
survey of the property of the petitioner involving the fifth
respondent should resolve the dispute. Therefore, I direct
that respondents 3 and 4 will get the property in the
possession of the petitioner surveyed afresh with notice to
him, which also involving the fifth respondent and that on such
survey, if it is found that the property possessed by the
petitioner is fully covered by his title deed, fresh orders on the
application made by the petitioner for NOC shall be passed.
This shall be done by respondents 3 and 4 within four weeks
from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
W.P.(C) No.33580/10
: 4 :
6. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment and
writ petition before respondents 3 and 4 for compliance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks
// True Copy //
P.A. To Judge