IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 408 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.37660/2008 Dated 22/07/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------- M/S.VA PHARMACEUTICALS(INDIA) LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VASUDEVAN K. PANDALATH, "PANDALATH BUNGALOW", THYKOODAM, VYTTILA, COCHIN-19. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.G.VIDYA SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, OLAVAKODE, PALAKKAD DIST.-678 002. BY SPL. G.P.(FOREST) SRI.M.P.PRAKASH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.408 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 7th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge declining relief sought for by the petitioner i.e. to tap rubber trees from 67.56 hectares of land in Palakkad District, which originally belonged to a Devaswom and was said to be given in lease to another person from whom petitioner is stated to have purchased the rights. Senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant's grievance is essentially against observation of the learned Single Judge that appellant has no right over the property. On going through the judgment and after hearing the Special Government Pleader (Forest), we do not find any adverse observation against the appellant in respect of any rights, if at all they have acquired from their predecessor. In fact, the property is claimed by the Devaswom and neither the Devaswom nor the predecesssor was a party before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, findings have to be only confined to the relief sought 2 and the parties against whom the same is sought for. The appellant relied on Ext.P1 judgment produced before the learned Single Judge and the Single Judge noticed that Ext.P1 is a common judgment wherein the writ petition filed by the appellant earlier was dismissed by this court. In this context only the appellant's claim to collect usufructs from the property was turned down by the learned Single Judge. We, therefore, hold that appellants right, if any, to claim property against the predecessor or against the Devaswom is not affected by virtue of the observation of the learned Single Judge. However, we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings in the judgment so far as the relief sought for is concerned i.e. against Forest Department. We do not find any ground to interfere with the same. Writ Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the above observation. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms