IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 8502 of 2008(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. K.N.DEVADATHAN, SRIVILAS, SANGEETHA ROAD PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. CHANDRIKA, CHANDRIKA VILAS ALAYAKKAD TEMPLE ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 2. THE RANGE OFFICER, MUNDOOR, PALAKKAD. 3. THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FOREST & CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, VESTED FOREST CIRCLE KOZHIKODE. 4. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. RENJITH THAMPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.8502/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to hand over possession of 11.55 acres of land comprised in Exts.P1 and P2 to the petitioners. As is evident from the averment in the writ petition itself, the petitioner has got the land on Verumpattam Oral lease by one Kunjunni Nair and from his assignee, the petitioners got the properties by Exts.P1 and P2 documents. According to the petitioners, on the coming into force of the Kerala Private Forest(Vesting and Assignment)Act, 1971, Kunjunni Nair had approached the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad by filing O.A.No.170/77. It is stated that the OA was allowed and the land was ordered to be exempted from the provisions of the Vesting Act. Even according to the petitioners, in the year 1987, the 3rd respondent filed a 2 review petition in O.A.NO.170/77 and the review was allowed and the O.A. Was dismissed. The MFA filed in his court against the review order passed by the Tribunal was also rejected by this court. From this, it is evident that the land in question is a Private Forest and that the said laid has vested in the 4th respondent. If that be so, the fact that an application made by the petitioner claiming the benefit of Section 7E of the KLR Act, in my view, does not alter the situation and the very maintainability of the petition is open to doubt. Therefore, the pendency of the application before the Land Board, as now stated, made by the petitioner cannot make any difference in the status of the land which is a vested forest. In view of the fact that the land in question is a vested private forest, the possession of which is already vested in the 4th respondent, the petitioners cannot seek the relief sought for. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC vi JUDGE 3