IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16280 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUHAMMED ISMAIL,S/O.SIKHANDER RAWTHER, M.G.P.II/99,KARIKUTTY KARA,MARAYOOR VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SANDAL WOOD DIVISION,MARAYOOR,IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. FOREST RANGE OFFICER,MARAYOOR FOREST RANGE,MARAYOOR,DEVIKULAM TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. TAHSILDAR,DEVIKULAM TALUK,DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT,DEVIKULAM TALUK, DEVIKULAM. 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,VILLAGE OFFICE, MARAYOOR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 16280 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 6th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner and his brothers claim to be in possession of certain properties in which there were some sandalwood trees. According to the petitioners, those trees fell down having been deceased. These trees were collected by the petitioner and were sold by the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to payment of 70% of the tree value. The petitioner contends that the claim is pending consideration before the 1st respondent. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “A. Call for the records relating to Ext. P1 to P13 from the respondents. B. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to pay 70% of the tree value collected from the sale of sandal wood collected from the property of the petitioner. C. In the alternate, issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 to 6 to conduct a joint verification of the property of the petitioner to ascertain the nature of assignment/or the land status or any other legal requirements as required by the respondents 1 to 6 and dispose of Ext. P13 within reasonable time frame fixed by this hon'ble court after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.” 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. For the same relief, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P(C).No. 10465/2007 in which this Court passed the following judgment, which is produced as Ext. P11 in the writ petition: W.P.C. No. 16280/2010 -: 2 :- “The prayer in this writ petition is to direct release of the 70% of the sale proceeds of the sandal woods collected from the property of the petitioner and his brothers, together with interest thereon. 2. The petitioner submits that from the property belonging to him and his brothers sandal wood was cut and but however proceedings were initiated against them, before a Criminal Court. It is stated that the case ended in acquittal as per Ext. P4. It is thereafter that they have now raised a claim that they are entitled to get 70% of the sale proceeds of the sandal wood, which is now in deposit. 3. The basis of the claim now raised is Exts.P9 and P10 Government Orders dated 3.4.1973 and 21.1.1994 respectively. In Ext. P9, it is ordered that, if sandal wood trees are purchased from private lands, owner of the land is entitled to 70% of the auction proceeds and the balance 30% of the sale proceeds will go to the Government. Ext. P10 Government Order only deals with the manner of quantifying 30%. Thus from Exts.P9 and P10, it is evident that if sandal wood is collected from the private property, the owner of the land is entitled to 70% of the sale proceeds. 4. To prove his contention that the land from which the sandal wood trees are cut belongs to the petitioner and his brothers, what is relied on is Ext. P1 report of the Village Officer, Marayoor and Ext.R2(a) proceedings of the Divisional Forest Officer. It is to be stated that title deeds are not placed on record. It is true that, these two documents would indicate that the land in question is that of the petitioner and his brothers. However, contrary reports are also available and these are Exts.R2(b) and (c) of the Village Officer, Marayoor. Going by these reports, the land does not belong to any private individual and was not one which was assigned to anyone at any point of time. True Ext. R2 (c) is not very clear as Ext.R2(b). But these two documents would certainly create a doubt regarding the title of the petitioner in respect of the property claimed by him and unless the petitioner is able to establish his title to the land, he seek the relief sought in this petition. On the materials available, I cannot conclude on the title of the petitioner over the property from which sandal wood in question was collected. In my view, it is necessary for the petitioner to seek a declaration of his title from a competent civil court. In the absence of this, this Court cannot order release of W.P.C. No. 16280/2010 -: 3 :- 70% of the sale proceeds. Leaving it open to the petitioner to seek declaration of his title to the property from a competent civil court, and thereafter the sale proceeds, this writ petition is closed.” The petitioner took up the matter in writ appeal and the Division Bench dismissed the same upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner filed R.P.No. 85/2009 before the Division Bench, in which the Division Bench passed the following order: “Petitioner seeks review of the judgment in W.A.No. 2002/2008 contending inter alia that Ext. R2(a) to (c) will clearly show that the forest department does not have any right over the trees allegedly cut from the property in question. Learned counsel further tried to impress on us that the finding entered by the Division Bench may be contrary to what has been indicated in those documents. 2. We are afraid that the attempt of the appellant is only to re-argue the matter, which cannot be permitted in a review jurisdiction. There is no merit in the review petition. It is accordingly dismissed. 3. However, we make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum or authority to establish his right over the sale proceeds of timber, if so advised.” Now, relying on the last paragraph of Ext. P12 judgment, the petitioner has filed Ext. P13 representation before the Divisional Forest Officer. In this writ petition , the petitioner seeks a direction to dispose of that representation . I do not think that after suffering Exts.P11 and P12 judgments, the petitioner can again file this writ petition seeking the same reliefs as in W.P(C) No. 10465/2007. Of course, a further relief is added for a direction to dispose of Ext. P13. When in Ext. P11 judgment, this W.P.C. No. 16280/2010 -: 4 :- Court found that the title of the petitioner and his brothers over the property from which sandal wood in question was collected was in dispute, I do not think that the petitioner can again file this writ petition without first getting the title over the property established in a civil suit. As such, I am of opinion that this writ petition is an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.5,000/-, which shall be paid to the respondents within two weeks. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.