IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10176 of 2009(O) AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.NO.341/2008 IN OA.38, 39, 40/2002 OF FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE PETITIONER: --------------- MOHAMMED ALI, S/O.KONGATH HYDROSE, ALANALLUR, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (F & WLD), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN, FOREST COMPLEX, OLAVAKODE, PALAKKAD. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MANNARKAD. 4. THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE. SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR FORESTS SRI.S.SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 10176 OF 2009 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th April, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petitioner is the applicant in O.A.No.38 of 2002 and the petitioner in I.A.No.341 of 2008, on the file of the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode. The applicants in O.A.Nos.39 of 2002 and 40 of 2002 are the brothers of the petitioner. The total extent of the property covered by these applications is stated to be 15 acres. As per the order dated 27.10.2004, the Forest Tribunal dismissed O.A.Nos.38, 39 and 40 of 2002, which was challenged in M.F.A.No.69 of 2005. The High Court set aside the order of the Forest Tribunal and remanded the case to the Tribunal for consideration of the question whether the land was a private forest as covered under the MPPF Act. 2. After remand, the petitioner and his brothers filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession of the property. The property is planted with rubber. As per the interim order passed by this Court, W.P.(C) NO.10176 OF 2009 :: 2 :: the petitioner and his brothers were taking the yield from the rubber trees. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the Forest Tribunal granted temporary injunction and allowed the petitioner and his brothers to tap the rubber trees until the disposal of the OAs. However, the Forest Tribunal imposed four conditions to enable the petitioner and his brothers to tap the rubber trees. The petitioner is aggrieved by condition No.1 in the order. 3. Condition No.1 in the order impugned reads as follows: “(1) The petitioners shall perform tapping of the rubber trees in the schedule properties in the presence of forest officials. The Range Officer concerned shall depute sufficient number of forest officials to be present at the time of tapping of the rubber trees when intimated by the petitioners, in advance.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not practicable for the petitioner to intimate the forest officials every day and to ensure their presence at the time of tapping. It is pointed out that tapping is to be done every day in view of the extent of the property. Tapping is to be done early in the morning. The petitioner may find it difficult to inform the forest officials every day, submits the counsel W.P.(C) NO.10176 OF 2009 :: 3 :: for the petitioner. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader for forests submitted that it is not necessary to inform the forest officials every day. The petitioner need inform when tapping is to be commenced and that can be taken as sufficient information for the day-to-day functioning until otherwise intimated. It is also undertaken by the learned Special Government Pleader that sufficient number of officials will be deputed to supervise the work as mentioned in the order passed by the Forest Tribunal and that there will be no room for any complaint that the tapping could not be done because of the absence of forest officials. These submissions made by the Special Government Pleader for forests are recorded. 5. I do not think that the condition imposed by the Forest Tribunal is unreasonable or unjust. There is no grievance for the petitioner in respect of condition Nos.2 to 4. To ensure smooth functioning of the tapping operation and for the correct accounting of the quantity of latex derived from tapping, I am of the view that the Forest Tribunal was justified in imposing condition No.1. No W.P.(C) NO.10176 OF 2009 :: 4 :: prejudice would be caused to the petitioner due to the presence of the forest officials at the time of tapping. The only grievance of the petitioner is that sufficient number of forest officials will not be available to witness the tapping. That grievance has now vanished in view of the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader for Forests. Recording the submission made by the Special Government Pleader for Forests, the Writ Petition is closed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/