High Court Kerala High Court

P.Noorudheen vs State Of Kerala on 2 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
P.Noorudheen vs State Of Kerala on 2 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 2529 of 2010(O)


1. P.NOORUDHEEN, PALLATH HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. P.HAMZA, PALLATH HOUSE,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CUSTODIAN AND CONSERVATOR OF VESTED

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :02/03/2010

 O R D E R
                    P. BHAVADASAN, J.
            =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
                  W.P.(C) No. 2529 of 2010
            =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
           Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010

                         JUDGMENT

This petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India seeking a direction to consider Exts.P4

and P5 applications. Ext.P4 was filed for correcting the

order and Ext.P5 was filed for amending the O.A. schedule.

2. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had

approached the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad by filing O.A.

No.588 of 1976, claiming exemption in respect of 7 acres of

land under section 8 of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting &

Assignment) Act. The O.A. was allowed. Survey number of

the property is shown as 96/3 of Nochipully desom, as per

Ext.P1 judgment. State has filed appeal, which was

dismissed and the decree became final. The petitioners who

were assignees of the applicant got themselves impleaded

in the applications filed for correcting the order and

amending the O.A. schedule. The Forest Tribunal dismissed

the applications holding that the Tribunal has no

W.P.(C) No. 2529/10 2

jurisdiction as the order is merged with the judgment of

this Court. The petitioners approached this Court and this

Court as per Ext.P3 order, directed the petitioners to

approach the Tribunal for the said reliefs. Thereafter, the

petitioners have filed Exts. P4 and P5 applications before

the Tribunal.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Tribunal

is awaiting the records and that the applications are not

being disposed of.

4. In the light of the fact that there is an earlier

direction to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal and

petitioners have filed necessary applications. Hence, there

will be a direction to the Forest Tribunal to dispose of

Exts.P4 and P5 applications as early as possible, at any rate

within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this

judgment. It is made clear that status quo as on today shall

be maintained, till the applications mentioned above are

disposed of.

P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.

mn.