High Court Kerala High Court

Mrs.M.Nirmala vs State Of Kerala on 19 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
Mrs.M.Nirmala vs State Of Kerala on 19 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26424 of 2010(C)


1. MRS.M.NIRMALA,  D/O.A.P.RAMANKUTTY NAIR
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MRS.JYOTHI SIVASANKARAN,
3. MRS.GEETHA BHASKAR, D/O.A.P.RAMANKUTTY

                        Vs



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

2. CUSTODIAN (ECOLOGICALLY FRAGILE LANDS)&

3. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & CUSTODIAN OF

4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :19/08/2010

 O R D E R
                          S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
                 ---------------------------------------------
                   W.P.(C).No. 26424 of 2010
                 ---------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 19th day of August, 2010

                           J U D G M E N T

Petitioners are legal heirs of late Ramankutty Nair

whose properties were notified as vested in the Government

under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment)

Act. He filed O.A No.136/75 before the Forest Tribunal,

Palakkad and the same was allowed by the Forest Tribunal

holding that the property is not vested. The said order was

continued by this Court in M.F.A.No.45/78. The petitioners’

grievance in this writ petition is that the property has been

not been restored to the petitioners yet in accordance with

the judgment. According to the petitioners, it is not

notified under the Kerala Forest Vesting and Management

Ecologically Fragile Land Act also. But respondents are

interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the land of the

petitioners is their contention in this writ petition.

W.P.(C).No. 26424 of 2010 2

The learned Government Pleader on instructions

points out that by Exhibit P8 gazette notification the land

has been declared as an ecologically fragile land and

therefore the property cannot now be restored to the

petitioners. That being so the petitioners’ remedy lies in

approaching the Tribunal as provided in the said Act.

Accordingly, without prejudice to that right of the

petitioners, this writ petition is dismissed.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE.

rkc