IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26211 of 2006(U)
1. MADHAVI AMMA, WIDOW OF JANARDHANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,
3. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, PALAKKAD.
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :28/09/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P. (C) No. 26211 of 2006
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 28th day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the total lethargy on the
part of the respondents with regard to the non-correction of the village
records, after identification and demarcation of the property concerned
and non-acceptance of the basic tax from the petitioner, in spite of the
turn of events after a long battle which was being fought by the
petitioner for the last three decades.
2. The property taken over from the petitioner, alleging that it
was the forest land (2.12 Acres in the Palakkad taluk), was sought to be
restored by filing O.A. 121 of 1975 before the Forest Tribunal,
Kozhikkode. The O.A. was filed by the petitioner claiming exemption
from vesting, under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and
Assignment) Act, 1971. After considering the merits involved, the
Forest Tribunal allowed the application in part, which however was
subjected to challenge from the part of the State by filing MFA 1128 of
1998 before this Court. This culminated in Ext. P1 judgment passed on
10th December 2002, whereby the verdict passed by the Forest Tribunal
in favour of the petitioner was upheld. It was also observed in the said
verdict that, it was needless to mention that the State would implement
W.P. (C) No. 26211 of 2010
: 2 :
the orders passed by the Tribunal as modified.
3. Pursuant to the above verdict, the possession of the property
concerned was restored to the petitioner, as borne by Ext. P3 and P4
certificates issued by the first respondent/the Divisional Forest Officer.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext. P5 representation before the second
respondent seeking to identify the property and to demarcate the
boundaries. Necessary fee was paid as borne by Ext. P6 receipt. On
satisfying the requirements, the second respondent directed the 3rd
respondent/Taluk Surveyor, vide Ext. P7, to effect the measurement of
the above property and to fix the boundaries and submit a report, as
specified. It is stated that nothing transpired in positive, thereafter. But,
on a fine morning on 22.01.2005, Ext. P8 communication was issued by
the second respondent to the power of attorney holder of the petitioner,
informing that the property covered by O A 121 of 1975 still continued
to be as ‘forest land’ in the village records and required to produce
necessary records to effect appropriate correction. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that, in spite of production of the
relevant documents including the verdict passed by the Tribunal, copy
of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court and other
relevant materials such as Exts. P3 & P4 certificates and periphery
sketch, the matter still stands in ‘as is where is’ condition and the
W.P. (C) No. 26211 of 2010
: 3 :
petitioner is unable to enjoy the property by remitting the basic tax. The
request made by the petitioner has been turned down by the 4th
respondent, as revealed from Ext. P9 (sent by the 4th respondent to the
second respondent), which made the petitioner to approach this Court,
seeking for appropriate direction in this regard.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
5. Though the above Writ Petition was admitted on 06.10.2006,
no counter affidavit has been filed from the part of the respondents till
date, presumably for the reason that, no factual position is required to
be disputed. In so far as the Forest Tribunal has passed an order,
which has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, as per
Ext. P1 judgment; pursuant to which, the possession has been restored
to the petitioner vide Exts. P3 and P4 certificates issued by the first
respondent and further since the second respondent has admitted the
receipt of application submitted by the petitioner for identifying and
demarcating the property and also as to the remittance of necessary
fees in this regard leading to Ext. P7 direction given to the 3rd
respondent to pursue further steps, the only issue now remaining to be
considered is whether there is any justification in further delay; which
can be answered only in the negative.
W.P. (C) No. 26211 of 2010
: 4 :
6. In the above circumstances, the respondents are hereby
directed to take all necessary steps and finalize the further proceedings
by causing the concerned property to be identified, measured out, and
to have the boundaries fixed accordingly. The respondents are also
directed to make necessary entries/corrections in the village records,
thereby enabling the petitioner to enjoy the property by remitting the
basic tax as well. The proceedings as above shall be completed as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 3 months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is allowed. No cost.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd