IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30623 of 2008(U) -------------------------- OA.4/2007 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- JENSON PAUL, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.LATE M.C.PAUL, MANAGING DIRECTOR, EURO-TECH GRANITES (P) LTD., KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOY GEORGE SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CUSTODIAN (ECOLOGICALLY FRAGILE LANDS), & CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR (E & TW), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE FOREST TRIBUNAL (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD), REPRESENTED BY THE GOVT.PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA M.K. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.30623 of 2008 U -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner claimed that the disputed property which originally belonged to Kavalapara Mooppil Sthanam was taken on lease by one Kunchu Achan on 6.11.1961 on behalf of Neduvil Edam Tharawad and on State Government treating the said property as vested forest, that Tharawad approached the Forest Tribunal in O.A.No.175 of 1978 which culminated in Ext.P2, judgment dated 30.6.1992 holding that the disputed property is not private forest. O.A.No.175 of 1978 was allowed. According to the petitioner, he purchased the property as per Ext.P1, sale deed dated 5.9.2002 and for the purpose of establishing a crusher unit, obtained necessary permits from various departments as evidenced from Exts.P4 to P8. Petitioner claims that while he started planting rubber in that property to create green belt for the crusher unit, that was obstructed by the respondents. Petitioner submitted Ext.P9, application dated 9.8.2006 to the second respondent and since there was no action, filed W.P.(C) No.23346 of 2006. As per judgment dated 30.8.2006 second respondent was directed to pass orders on Ext.P9 within four months. Since no orders were passed, petitioner again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.7230 of 2007. Petitioner states that while that Writ Petition was pending, respondents issued Ext.P11, order which was challenged in W.P.(C) No.20624 WP(C) No.30623/2008 2 of 2007. As per judgment dated 5.7.2007 petitioner was relegated to the alternative remedy by way of an appeal before the Forest Tribunal. It was directed that all the contentions raised by the petitioner in the Writ Petition could be urged before the Tribunal. Accordingly, petitioner has moved the Forest Tribunal. No action was taken since no Rules were framed . Petitioner again approached this Court in W.P(C) No.22974 of 2007. As per judgment dated 26.7.2007, first respondent was directed to ensure that the Tribunal functions within six weeks from the date of the judgment, if necessary by framing appropriate Rules in that regard. Now, Rules are framed and what the petitioner wants is an early disposal of the petition pending before the Forest Tribunal. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the petitioner has been approaching this Court with several Writ petitions seeking reliefs, it is only appropriate to direct the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad to dispose of the petition preferred by the petitioner, if steps are otherwise complete within a period of six months from today. Respondents shall file their counter if any, before the Tribunal. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks