IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 377 of 2009(T)
1. C.A. RAMANKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE CUSTODIAN OF PRIVATE FOREST
3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.H.BADARUDDIN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :22/01/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P(C).Nos. 377, 412 & 413 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioners in these writ petitions seek consideration of Exts.P3
and P4(in WPC 377/09) and Exts.P4 and P5 (in WPC 412 & 413/09)
representations made by the respective petitioners for assignment of
the lands in terms of Ext.P1 Rules. Petitioners were in possession
of certain lands, which according to the learned Additional Advocate
General, were forest lands. It is also stated on behalf of respondents
that the petitioners have been evicted on 13.06.08. In so far as the
representations now made by the petitioners are concerned, the
learned Additional Advocate General points out that if such
representations are made in terms of Ext.P1, such representations
are entertainable only in terms of Rule 6 thereof. It is stated that
there has not been any publication of list of assignable lands in which
event only there can be an application for assignment also.
2. In my view, even though representations have been
preferred by the petitioners, so long as any list of assignable lands
have not been published, the applications cannot come within the
scope of Ext.P1 Rules. In such a case this Court will not be justified
W.P.C.Nos. 377, 412 & 413 OF 2009
-:2:-
in directing the respondents to consider the representations.
Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
ttb