IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35290 of 2010(I)
1. PONGALVILA DEVI SHETRHAM TRUST
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.
3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
4. DEVARAJAN, S/O.KUNJIRAMAN, AGED 64
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.MANU
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :03/01/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.35290 OF 2010(I)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
The dispute in this writ petition is regarding the disposal of a
sandal wood that was cut and removed from the premises of the
petitioner temple.
2. According to the petitioner, there was a sandal wood tree
in the temple premises. Pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2, on 1.12.2005,
the sandal wood tree was cut and removed to Marayur Forest
Depot. Ext.P3 is the mahazar prepared. At that stage, it would
appear that the 4th respondent claimed title over the timber and a
lawyer notice was issued in this behalf to the 3rd respondent.
Subsequently, petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation to the
3rd respondent requesting to sell the sandal wood in auction and
to keep the value fetched. To that request of the petitioner,
Ext.P7 reply was given stating that since no orders have been
passed in this respect by the Paravur Munsiff Court, which
disposed of O.S.No.1/2001 and as further disputes are pending
consideration of the Court, until the disputes are finally resolved,
no further action can be taken. It is in these circumstances, the
WPC.No. 35290/2010
:2 :
petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. By order dated 25.11.2010, this court has issued notice
to the 4th respondent by speed post. Despite service of notice
there is no appearance on his behalf. Learned Government
Pleader who has obtained instruction in the matter submits that it
was only on account of the disputes raised by the 4th respondent
that they are not in a position to take further action on Ext.P6.
4. As at present, although it is a fact that the dispute
between the petitioner and the 4th respondent concerning the
title to the sandal wood in question are pending, no order has
been passed by any court preventing disposal of the sandal
wood. It is also a fact thatt he timber being a perishable article,
unless it is disposed of, its value will be reduced. Therefore it is in
the interest of both parties to have the timber in question
auctioned.
5. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to think that the
3rd respondent should be permitted to dispose of the sandal wood
in question in public auction, in accordance with the rules framed
for the disposal of such timber. This the 3rd respondent shall do
on the production of a copy of the judgment.
WPC.No. 35290/2010
:3 :
6. It is directed that the value fetched in auction shall be
kept in a separate account and the disbursal of this amount will
depend upon the decision in O.S.No.483/08 on the file of the
Additional District Court, Kollam, which suit is stated to be
pending.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/