IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10176 of 2009(O)
1. MOHAMMED ALI, S/O.KONGATH HYDROSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS,
3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
4. THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE.
For Petitioner :SRI.M.C.JOHN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :06/04/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 10176 OF 2009 O
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th April, 2009
JUDGMENT
The Writ Petitioner is the applicant in O.A.No.38 of 2002 and
the petitioner in I.A.No.341 of 2008, on the file of the Forest Tribunal,
Kozhikode. The applicants in O.A.Nos.39 of 2002 and 40 of 2002
are the brothers of the petitioner. The total extent of the property
covered by these applications is stated to be 15 acres. As per the
order dated 27.10.2004, the Forest Tribunal dismissed O.A.Nos.38,
39 and 40 of 2002, which was challenged in M.F.A.No.69 of 2005.
The High Court set aside the order of the Forest Tribunal and
remanded the case to the Tribunal for consideration of the question
whether the land was a private forest as covered under the MPPF
Act.
2. After remand, the petitioner and his brothers filed an
application for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from
interfering with their possession of the property. The property is
planted with rubber. As per the interim order passed by this Court,
W.P.(C) NO.10176 OF 2009
:: 2 ::
the petitioner and his brothers were taking the yield from the rubber
trees. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Forest Tribunal granted temporary injunction and allowed the
petitioner and his brothers to tap the rubber trees until the disposal of
the OAs. However, the Forest Tribunal imposed four conditions to
enable the petitioner and his brothers to tap the rubber trees. The
petitioner is aggrieved by condition No.1 in the order.
3. Condition No.1 in the order impugned reads as follows:
“(1) The petitioners shall perform tapping of the rubber
trees in the schedule properties in the presence of
forest officials. The Range Officer concerned
shall depute sufficient number of forest officials to
be present at the time of tapping of the rubber
trees when intimated by the petitioners, in
advance.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not practicable
for the petitioner to intimate the forest officials every day and to
ensure their presence at the time of tapping. It is pointed out that
tapping is to be done every day in view of the extent of the property.
Tapping is to be done early in the morning. The petitioner may find
it difficult to inform the forest officials every day, submits the counsel
W.P.(C) NO.10176 OF 2009
:: 3 ::
for the petitioner.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader for forests
submitted that it is not necessary to inform the forest officials every
day. The petitioner need inform when tapping is to be commenced
and that can be taken as sufficient information for the day-to-day
functioning until otherwise intimated. It is also undertaken by the
learned Special Government Pleader that sufficient number of
officials will be deputed to supervise the work as mentioned in the
order passed by the Forest Tribunal and that there will be no room
for any complaint that the tapping could not be done because of the
absence of forest officials. These submissions made by the Special
Government Pleader for forests are recorded.
5. I do not think that the condition imposed by the Forest
Tribunal is unreasonable or unjust. There is no grievance for the
petitioner in respect of condition Nos.2 to 4. To ensure smooth
functioning of the tapping operation and for the correct accounting of
the quantity of latex derived from tapping, I am of the view that the
Forest Tribunal was justified in imposing condition No.1. No
W.P.(C) NO.10176 OF 2009
:: 4 ::
prejudice would be caused to the petitioner due to the presence of
the forest officials at the time of tapping. The only grievance of the
petitioner is that sufficient number of forest officials will not be
available to witness the tapping. That grievance has now vanished
in view of the submission made by the learned Special Government
Pleader for Forests.
Recording the submission made by the Special Government
Pleader for Forests, the Writ Petition is closed.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/