{"id":130706,"date":"2010-04-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010"},"modified":"2014-05-11T08:01:24","modified_gmt":"2014-05-11T02:31:24","slug":"n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"N.K. Sivaraman vs Divisional Forest Officer on 7 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
N.K. Sivaraman vs Divisional Forest Officer on 7 April, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP.No. 446 of 2009()\n\n\n1. N.K. SIVARAMAN, S\/O. KRISHNANKUTTY,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. RECEIVER, KAVALAPPARA ESTATE,\n\n3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :07\/04\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                         P.BHAVADASAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
       ————————————————————–
\n        CRP Nos.446,462, 463, 464, 465,467 of 2009\n<\/p>\n
       —————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
                        Dated 7th April 2010<\/p>\n
                                  Order<\/p>\n
           Six appeals namely AA Nos.36, 37, 38, 39, 40<\/span><\/p>\n
and 41 of 1996 filed by the Divisional Forest Officer,<\/p>\n
Nenmara Division, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad, were allowed<\/p>\n
by the appellate authority (Land Reforms) and the matter<\/p>\n
was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration.<\/p>\n
The said order is assailed in these Revision Petitions.<\/p>\n
Since common questions are thrown up for consideration<\/p>\n
in these revisions, they are heard together and disposed of<\/p>\n
by this common order. The facts and exhibits in CRP<\/p>\n
No.446\/09 are being referred to hereinafter.<\/p>\n
           2. The revision petitioner herein is the first<\/p>\n
respondent in AA No.41\/96. The petitioner claimed to have<\/p>\n
purchased 2.33 acres of land in Survey No.428\/J\/5 in<\/p>\n
Kavassery No.1 Village in Alathur Taluk from one<\/p>\n
C.P.Narayanan Nair, who is the predecessor in interest of<\/p>\n
CRP NO.446\/09 & connected cases   2<\/p>\n
the property.     It is pointed out that the janmam right<\/p>\n
belongs    to   Kavalappara     Estate   and   the  petitioner<\/p>\n
purchased the kanam right from Narayanan Nair.<\/p>\n
           3. It is pointed out that there were 20.27 acres of<\/p>\n
land comprised in Survey No.428\/J-5. It was the subject<\/p>\n
matter of ceiling proceedings No.170\/73 before the Taluk<\/p>\n
Land Board, Alathur. The predecessor in interest of the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner contended that the entire 20.27 acres of<\/p>\n
land is private forest and is liable to be excluded from the<\/p>\n
ceiling limit. The Government opposed the claim of the<\/p>\n
declarant and it was found that Narayanan Nair was liable<\/p>\n
to surrender 8.74 acres of land as excess land and he<\/p>\n
could retain only 11.53 acres in ceiling area. No appeal<\/p>\n
was filed by the State against the said order and so, the<\/p>\n
said order has become final. From the properties which<\/p>\n
were held by Narayanan Nair, the petitioner purchased a<\/p>\n
portion of the same. In fact, the petitioner in the other<\/p>\n
revision petitions are closely related to the petitioner in<\/p>\n
CRP No.446\/09.\n<\/p>\n
CRP NO.446\/09 & connected cases    3<\/p>\n
           4. The revision petitioner would point out that<\/p>\n
later, SM proceedings were initiated by the Land Board and<\/p>\n
purchase certificates was issued to the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
and others.     The revision petitioner in CRP No.446\/09<\/p>\n
started a metal crusher unit in his property and invested<\/p>\n
considerable amount in that venture.        When electricity<\/p>\n
connection was applied for, the Forest Range Officer took<\/p>\n
out an objection. Therefore, the petitioner approached this<\/p>\n
Court by filing OP No.1654\/94. The said OP was disposed<\/p>\n
of directing the petitioner to approach the Tribunal<\/p>\n
constituted   under      the   Private Forest Vesting  and<\/p>\n
Assignment Act. The petitioner thereafter filed OA<\/p>\n
No.114\/94 to have declared that the extent of property<\/p>\n
earned by him did not vest in the State. That was allowed.<\/p>\n
The Custodian of Forests filed an appeal before the Forest<\/p>\n
Tribunal. Thereafter, the first respondent filed an appeal<\/p>\n
against the order of the Coyalmannam Land Tribunal in SM<\/p>\n
proceedings No.161\/89 and other proceedings, raising a<\/p>\n
contention that the Forest Department was not made a<\/p>\n
CRP NO.446\/09 & connected cases   4<\/p>\n
party to the SM proceedings and the orders are not binding<\/p>\n
on them and are invalid. The revision petitioner and other<\/p>\n
filed objections in the said appeal. The Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
allowed the appeals and ordered the Tribunal to set aside<\/p>\n
the patta issued in SM proceedings and to issue notice to<\/p>\n
all interested parties. The matter was remanded to the<\/p>\n
Forest Tribunal for fresh consideration. In the meanwhile,<\/p>\n
the property held by the petitioner in CRP 446\/09 along<\/p>\n
with another item of property was notified as ecologically<\/p>\n
fragile land under the relevant Act. The petitioner<\/p>\n
challenged the notification under the said Act in OA<\/p>\n
No.45\/08. A commission was taken out in that OA and the<\/p>\n
Commissioner reported that there is no natural vegetation<\/p>\n
or forest and reported that the property is planted with<\/p>\n
rubber.   The petitioner assails the order of the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority, remanding the case to the Land Tribunal.<\/p>\n
           5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
pointed out that the remand was quite uncalled for since<\/p>\n
the Land Board had found that the extent of property held<\/p>\n
CRP NO.446\/09 & connected cases    5<\/p>\n
by the petitioners is liable to be reduced from the holding of<\/p>\n
the declarant and also that the Land Tribunal has given<\/p>\n
purchase certificates to the revision petitioner and others.<\/p>\n
           6. In the light of these facts, the question to be<\/p>\n
considered is whether these properties are liable to be<\/p>\n
treated as forests.\n<\/p>\n
           7. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader<\/p>\n
pointed out that the mere fact that the Land Board has held<\/p>\n
that the properties are not liable to be accounted by the<\/p>\n
declarant, is not binding on the Forest Tribunal, which has<\/p>\n
to determine the issue independently. It is admitted fact,<\/p>\n
according to the learned Government Pleader that the<\/p>\n
Custodian of Forests was not a party to the SM<\/p>\n
proceedings in which purchase certificates were given to<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner and others. It is those orders that are<\/p>\n
challenged in the various appeals before the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority. The Appellate Authority, rightly allowed the<\/p>\n
appeals and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal<\/p>\n
concerned. The learned Government Pleader, in support of<\/p>\n
CRP NO.446\/09 & connected cases   6<\/p>\n
his contentions, relied on the the decision reported in State<\/p>\n
of Kerala v. Popular Estates<\/a> (2004(12) SCC 434).<\/p>\n
           8. It is true that the land held by the petitioner<\/p>\n
was bought from Narayanan Nair, who was entitled to hold<\/p>\n
only 11.53 acres of land. In fact, the entire property was<\/p>\n
purchased by the members of the same family. It appears<\/p>\n
that these persons were able to get purchase certificates<\/p>\n
said to have been obtained as per the order in the SM<\/p>\n
Proceedings by the concerned Land Tribunal.        It is to be<\/p>\n
noticed that the Custodian of Forests was not a party to<\/p>\n
the said proceedings. The Custodian of Forests felt<\/p>\n
aggrieved by the order since according to him, the property<\/p>\n
fell within the ambit of Private Forests (Vesting and<\/p>\n
Assignment) Act and purchase certificates ought not have<\/p>\n
been granted. It is for that reason, the appeals were filed.<\/p>\n
           9. It is true that the revision petitioner had<\/p>\n
produced several documents before the Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
in respect of their claims. But, the fact remains that the<\/p>\n
appeals filed by the Divisional Forest Officer were allowed<\/p>\n
CRP NO.446\/09 & connected cases       7<\/p>\n
by the Appellate Authority, holding that none of the affected<\/p>\n
persons were parties to the SM Proceedings, including the<\/p>\n
owner and the intermediaries. In this context, the decision<\/p>\n
relied on by the petitioner in State of Kerala v. Popular<\/p>\n
Estates<\/a> (supra) may be referred to. In paragraph 11 of the<\/p>\n
said decision, it has been observed as follows :<\/p>\n
                  “Thus, it is not possible to say that the decision of the<\/p>\n
           Taluk Land Board had become final. Secondly, the Taluk<\/p>\n
           Land Board was only concerned with the issue as to<\/p>\n
           whether the lands held by the respondents were liable to be<\/p>\n
           exempted from the ceiling limits. As long as the land fell into<\/p>\n
           one of the exempted categories, the board was not<\/p>\n
           concerned with the exact category under which the land fell<\/p>\n
           since both private forest and plantation are exempted<\/p>\n
           categories. Apart from the determination of the extent of the<\/p>\n
           exempted land, the Board was strictly not requited to go into<\/p>\n
           the question as to whether the land was plantation or private<\/p>\n
           forest. For both these reasons, we are unable to accept that<\/p>\n
           the decision of the Taluk Land Board could operate as res<\/p>\n
           judicata and prejudiced the rights of the State Government<\/p>\n
           before the Forest Tribunal.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           10. In the light of the above decision, it is not<\/p>\n
open for the revision petitioner to contend that because the<\/p>\n
Land Board has not taken the extent of land in the<\/p>\n
CRP NO.446\/09 & connected cases   8<\/p>\n
possession of the petitioners as holdings held by the<\/p>\n
declarant, it does not mean that the Land Tribunal is bound<\/p>\n
by that order. Going by the above decision, the Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal can independently determine the claim of the<\/p>\n
petitioner and others. The definite stand of the State is that<\/p>\n
these properties are private forests and they are not liable<\/p>\n
to be exempted. In the OA before the Tribunal concerned,<\/p>\n
there is a Commissioner’s report and plan. it is also seen<\/p>\n
that at one point of time, the State had a contention that the<\/p>\n
property is not a forest area. Whatever that be, the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority has now felt that the issue regarding<\/p>\n
tenancy requires reconsideration at the hands of the Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal. The revision petitioner and others can urge their<\/p>\n
contentions before the Land Tribunal. Viewed from that<\/p>\n
angle, it could not be said that there is much grievance for<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
           11. The result is that these petitions are without<\/p>\n
any merits and are liable to be dismissed. I do so, reserving<\/p>\n
the liberty of both the parties to raise all their contentions<\/p>\n
CRP NO.446\/09 & connected cases   9<\/p>\n
before the Land Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n
sta<\/p>\n
CRP NO.446\/09 & connected cases   10<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court N.K. Sivaraman vs Divisional Forest Officer on 7 April, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP.No. 446 of 2009() 1. N.K. SIVARAMAN, S\/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, … Petitioner Vs 1. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, … Respondent 2. RECEIVER, KAVALAPPARA ESTATE, 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL For […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-130706","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nN.K. Sivaraman vs Divisional Forest Officer on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N.K. Sivaraman vs Divisional Forest Officer on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-11T02:31:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N.K. Sivaraman vs Divisional Forest Officer on 7 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-11T02:31:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1491,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010\",\"name\":\"N.K. Sivaraman vs Divisional Forest Officer on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-11T02:31:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N.K. Sivaraman vs Divisional Forest Officer on 7 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"N.K. Sivaraman vs Divisional Forest Officer on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N.K. Sivaraman vs Divisional Forest Officer on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-11T02:31:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N.K. Sivaraman vs Divisional Forest Officer on 7 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-11T02:31:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010"},"wordCount":1491,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010","name":"N.K. Sivaraman vs Divisional Forest Officer on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-11T02:31:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-sivaraman-vs-divisional-forest-officer-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N.K. Sivaraman vs Divisional Forest Officer on 7 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130706","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=130706"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130706\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130706"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130706"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130706"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}