IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36647 of 2009(O)
1. U.V.JOSE, S/O.U.A.VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FOREST,
3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
4. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER,
5. THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER,
For Petitioner :SRI.H.BADARUDDIN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :18/12/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.36647 of 2009 - O
---------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“i) To call for the records and hear the writ
petition.
ii) To direct the court below to reconsider
Ext.P2 order by taking note of the additional evidence
from the petitioner to hold Ext.P1 property is not a
Forest Land in the light of Ext.P3 final decree and
Ext.P4 notification.”
2. Petitioner is the auction purchaser in E.P.No.89 of 2000
in O.S.No.274 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad. After
issuance of sale sannath in his favour when he applied for delivery
of the property sold, the respondents filed a petition objecting the
delivery contending that the property is a vested forest under the
provisions of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of
Economically Fragile Land) Act, 2003, hereinafter referred to as the
KF(VMEFL) Act. A gazette notification was also produced by the
respondents to substantiate the objections so raised. Learned Sub
Judge being satisfied with the objection raised dismissed the
application moved by the petitioner/auction purchaser for delivery.
Ext.P2 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of
W.P.(C).No.36647 of 2009 – O
2
Ext.P2 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
3. I heard the counsel on both sides.
4. So far as the settlement of dispute as to the question
whether the land is ecologically fragile land or not, falls within the
domain of the Tribunal constituted under the KF(VMEFL) Act. When
an objection is raised producing a notification that the property
covered by the sale is a ecologically fragile land falling under the
provisions of the aforesaid Act before the execution court it cannot
proceed with the execution. It cannot adjudicate or determine the
question whether the property is ecologically fragile land or not.
So much so, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in Ext.P2
order passed by the learned Sub Judge. Petitioner/auction
purchaser has to work out his remedies before the appropriate
forum in appropriate proceedings, as provided by law.
Writ petition is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-