Sathyarajan vs The Principal Secretary To … on 6 January, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 2298 of 2009()


1. SATHYARAJAN,S/O.LATE APPUNNI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF

3. THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS &

4. THE CHIEF CONSERVATION OF FORESTS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :06/01/2010

 O R D E R
                     S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. &
                 Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
                ------------------------------------------
                       W.A.No.2298 of 2009
                ------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010

                           JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

One Usman, Pathumma and Muhammed moved the

Forest Tribunal and obtained Ext.P2 verdict. The

appellant/petitioner claims that he is the assignee of the parcels

belonging to the said persons. That transaction in favour of the

appellant is stated to be sometime in 1996. He has filed the writ

petition on the premise that even the Forest Tribunal had found

that the land dealt with by the appellant in terms of the

assignment in his favour in 1996 which earlier belongs to

Usman and others, did not form part of any private forest or any

land which the Government had not given possession to Usman

and others. The appellant accordingly states that the

respondents who are Government officials are unauthorisedly

W.A. No.2298 of 2009
2

interfering with the appellant’s peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the holding and on that ground he moved the

learned Single Judge for direction to the respondent officials.

2. After considering the materials on record, the

learned Single Judge has directed that if the petitioner produces

materials before the Custodian of Forests regarding the claim

made by him including the assignment from Usman and others

to him, that would be considered and the land would be restored

to its original owner.

3. This writ appeal is filed and has been entertained

after condoning the delay. The plea raised in this writ appeal is

that the appellant is in possession and nothing remained to be

delivered to the appellant. His attempt is only to protect the

possession already available. This is also a matter which, prima

facie, has to be considered by the Custodian of Forests on the

basis of the documents that the appellant may produce to show

that he is the successor in interest of the rights available under

W.A. No.2298 of 2009
3

Exts.P1 and P2 decisions of the Forest Tribunal. Still further, if

the appellant has any further grievance, or if the predecessors in

interest are entitled to any further relief, regarding the identity

of the property, relief can be appropriately sought for even from

the Forest Tribunal. We deem it inappropriate for this Court to

interfere with such disputed questions of fact, particularly on

issues relatable to possession and identity of lands. We do not

find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment or

enlarge the scope of the directions issued by the learned Single

Judge.

The writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly

dismissed.

S.R.Bannurmath,
Chief Justice

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,
Judge
vns