ivil Appeal Nos
3694 3695 of 1989
From the Judgment and Order dated 229
1987 of the Kerala High Court in OP Nos
4932 of 1983 and 1091 of 1982
TS Krishnamurthy Iyer and EMS Anam for the Appel ants
PS Poti and PK Pillai for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
Special leave granted
We have heard learned counsel for the parties
In disposing of the appeal against a decision of the Forest Tribunal under the provisions of the Kerala Private Forests Vesting  39 Assignment Act 1971 a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in MFA No 40178 disposed of on 14th of July 1980 directed It follows that out of 102 acres 25 acres over which teak was planted in 1967 and euca lyptus was planted in 1955 will be private forest coming within the Private Forests Vesting  Assignment Act
But since this area is under the personal cultivation of the respondent she will be entitled to 15 acres under Section 32 of the Act
The rest 10 acres will vest with the Government
In the result the appeal is partly allowed and the order of the lower court is modified as follows It is declared that 75 acres over which the respondent had planted teak wood orange and soft wood prior to 14th December 1949 is held to be not a private forest under the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act 1949 and Kerala Private Forests Vesting  Assignment Act 26 of 197 1
But of the rest 2 acres over which the respondent had planted cashew is declared to be not a private forest under Section 2f1iA and C of the Act
Another 15 acres under the personal cultivation of the respondent is also held not to vest under the above Act under Section 32 of the Act
The Custodian shall demarcate this 15 acres in such a manner that it will be convenient for the enjoyment of the respond ent
The balance 10 acres will vest
with the Government
With the demarcation and identifi cation of that 10 acres the case is sent back to the Forest Tribunal
If the Custodian has taken possession of the area declared not to vest he will surrender the same to the re spondent forthwith   In terms of this judgment 92 acres being the total of 75 acres  15 acres  2 acres were to be given back to the appellants
In the process of implementation of this direc tion certain lands were returned to the appellants by the Forest officials
These lands constituted thick forests and had valuable trees thereon
This fact was realised by the higher officers of the Department and timber transit permits were not issued to the appellants when applied for
There upon the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court for a direction to the State Government and its offi cers to issue the requisite transit permits to enable the appellants to transport the rosewood trees and other 40 timber
The claim contested
The High Court came to the conclusion It is made clear that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief with regard to rosewood and other trees cut from the lands which do not form part of the lands ordered to be restored to the petitioner in O P
No 4832 of 1983 and are vested in the Government
With respect to the trees cut from the properties ordered to be restored to the petitioner respondents 1 to 3 are directed to consider the applications filed by the petitioner for issue of transit permits and pass appropriate orders according to law
Before determining this question also the respondents may give an opportunity to both the petitioners to put forward their contentions and a final decision may be taken after considering their objec tions
 This order of the High Court is the subject matter of the present appeal
In an affidavit filed in this appeal by the conservator and Custodian of Vested Forests it has been accepted that in terms of the judgment of the High Court in MFA No 40 178 92 acres were found not to vest in the State under the Act
In the judgment the survey numbers with the respective extents had been furnished
It is stated that 12 acres had not been taken possession of and therefore surrender had to be made of 80 acres only
A further affidavit has been filed by the said Custodian where it has been said Hence only 80 acres are to be restored and out of this 5631 acres have admittedly been restored already
For the remaining 2369 acres Government are pleased to restore the same as follows vide GO Rt
No 134582AD dated 24582 in lieu of the land wrongly handed over to the petitioner
Survey No Area to be restored
1518 1019 acres 1580 603 acres 1580 747 acres It has been further stated therein that in case any part of such land is not available the Government are prepared to pay reasonable compensation for such shortfall as if the same had been acquired by the State for a public purpose
41 We are of the view that the High Court was right in refusing to act upon the footing that pursuant to the direc tion by the High Court about 36 acres of land containing forest growth had been surrendered to the appellants and therefore they were entitled to appropriate the trees
In fact within the ambit of the writ petition as filed before the High Court the only question that fell for considera tion was whether timber transit permits should or should not be issued to the appellants to enable them to transport the felled timber from the area which should not have been delivered to the appellants
Since we do not intend to differ from the High Court on that issue this appeal de serves to be dismissed but with a view to doing complete justice to the parties and give a final verdict in the matter we had enquired from Mr Poti appearing for the respondent State on 2731989 as to how Government proposed to comply with the binding direction of the High Court given in the first appeal
The affidavit of 24th of June 1989 by the Custodian of Vested Forests is in answer to that query
We would like to reiterate that the appellants are entitled to return of 92 acres of land and not 80 acres
This is on the ground that the direction of the High Court in the first appeal became final and in terms of such direc tion 92 acres were to go back to the appellants
Government had no authority to alter the decision by an administrative order as has been done on 2251982
There is no dispute that 5631 acres have been restored to the appellants
By the affidavit of 24th of June 1989 2369 acres have been offered to be restored from three survey numbers indicated therein
With the restoration of 2369 acres the appellants would have got back 80 acres of land
There would still be 12 acres to be returned to the appellants
The respondents shall have a direction to trace these 12 acres in the local ity and make over vacant possession to the appellants there of within four months hence
In case 2369 acres or any part thereof as indicated in the affidavit cannot be delivered possession and the balance 12 acres are not identified and possession thereof cannot be delivered the appellants shall be entitled to compensation in respect of the shortfall out of 3569 acres in all which remain to be delivered and compensation for such shortfall shall be determined as if it were acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisi tion Act the date of the preliminary notification being deemed to be the date of judgment in MFA 40178
The direc tions indicated above shall be worked out by the respondents within a total period of six months from today
The High Court called upon the respondents to consider the appellants  plea for timber transit permits in respect of trees cut from 42 certain other lands
There is no material on record as to whether that has been complied with
In case the respondents have not done the same yet they are directed to comply with the order of the High Court within three months from today
The appeal is allowed in part
Parties are directed to bear their respective costs
Appeal allowed partly


Summary:
In a public interest application filed under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution being denied to the hundreds of juvenile delinquents all over the country the Supreme Court had issued directions from time to time
Issuing further directions in the matter this Court HELD For the present the Advisory Board in terms of the provision of the scheme for facilitating the monitoring of the implementation of the Act should be set up at the State level and steps at the District level may be deferred
35E Each of the States including the State of Jammu  Kashmir to which the scheme would apply by its consent is directed to set up its Advisory Board in terms of the scheme
The total number of the Advisory Boards should not be below 15 and not above 20
The State Government should indicate as to who would be the Chairman and Secretary respectively of the Board
Such Committee should be set up within six weeks and report of compliance filed with the Registry of this Court within eight weeks
The first meeting of the Board should be within four weeks of its constitution and every such Board should send its first proceeding to the Registry 35F H 36A B