IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38666 of 2010(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ASPINWALL AND COMPANY LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DEVANKULANGARA, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY SMT.K.S.SMITHA. BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.NITHIN GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST & WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND CUSTODIAN (ECOLOGICALLY FRAGILE LANDS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. R1& R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.38666 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by a Company aggrieved by the refusal to accept a review application filed by the petitioner under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Land) Act, 2003 on the ground that the documents accompanying the review application do not prove the title of the petitioner to the said land. Ext.P10 is the order in that regard. The petitioner is challenging the same, seeking the following reliefs: “i) To declare that Ext P10 communication issued by the 2nd respondent, rejecting Ext P9 review application filed by the petitioner, is illegal, unjustified and arbitrary. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 2nd respondent to receive Ext P9 review application to file and to adjudicate the same on merits” According to the petitioner, the Rule on the strength of which the review application was refused to be accepted on file, does not authorise the second respondent to simply refuse to accept the application on file. According to them, Rule 17(2) of the Kerala W.P.(C)No.38666/10 2 Forest(Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Land) Rules, 2007 do not stipulate that the documents produced along with an application should be a title deed to prove the title of the petitioner. The petitioner would submit that the Rule only says that the application should be accompanied by documents to prove ownership, possession or enjoyment of the land. Any documents, which according to the petitioner would prove his ownership, possession or enjoyment of the land, would be sufficient for the purpose of taking review application on file and the question as to whether those documents actually prove the ownership, possession or enjoyment of the land by the petitioner has to be considered on merits in a judicial manner, after considering the evidentiary value of those documents, after hearing the petitioner. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent, wherein the stand taken is that the purport of Rule 17 is to the effect that application should be accompanied by acceptable documents, which would prove ownership, possession or enjoyment and it is within the power of the second respondent to refuse to accept the application on file, if the documents produced do not prima facie show ownership, W.P.(C)No.38666/10 3 possession or enjoyment by the petitioner in respect of the land in question. According to the 2nd respondent, the documents produced by the petitioner do not prima facie show ownership, possession or enjoyment of the property in question by the petitioner and therefore the action of the 2nd respondent is perfectly valid and proper. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Rule 17(2) of the Rules, reads thus: “Every application filed under sub rule (1) shall be accompanied by the following documents. a) documents to prove ownership or possession or enjoyment of the land; b) documents to prove that the land is cultivated by such crops that are exempted under the Act. c) Documents to prove the existence of a residential building if any, with the details thereof. d) Any other documents as may be necessary for the verification of the particulars mentioned in the application”. Ext.P10 reads thus: “Attention is invited to reference (1), wherein your application dated 15-4-2008 for review of notification was returned for want of necessary documents. The present application dated 07-12-2009 also does not have necessary documents as stipulated in Act/Rules. Hence your application dated 07-12-2009 is rejected”. On a reading of the said Rule, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader. Ownership, possession and enjoyment of a land can be proved otherwise than through title deeds. If an application for review is W.P.(C)No.38666/10 4 accompanied by relevant documents, which according to the petitioner, would prove his ownership, possession or enjoyment, the review application cannot be simply refused to be accepted on file. Of course, if the review application is not accompanied by any document whatsoever, or the documents produced do not relate to the property in question, certainly, the second respondent can refuse to accept the same by virtue of Rule 17(2) of the Rules. But, here in this case, the petitioner has produced Exts.P2 to P4 documents, which according to the petitioner would be sufficient to prove the claim of the petitioner. On going through the documents I am also satisfied that those documents relate to the property in question and are relevant documents. I am of opinion that in such a situation it was not proper on the part of the second respondent to outrage reject the application without taking it on file on the ground that the application is not accompanied by necessary documents as stipulated in the Rules. The only thing, the second respondent could have done was to accept the application on file and consider the applicability of the documents and the evidentiary value thereof for the purpose of deciding the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. W.P.(C)No.38666/10 5 That being so, Ext.P10 is clearly unsustainable. Accordingly, the same is quashed. The second respondent is directed to accept the review application filed by the petitioner on file on representation and consider the same on merits in accordance with law expeditiously. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.38666/10 6