IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 4625 of 2008(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- MUHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. VEERANKUTTY, KILAYIL HOUSE, MUNNOORKODE P.O., PALGHAT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.DIVAKARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CUSTODIAN-EX-OFFICIO SPECIAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE (FOREST SPECIAL, DEPARTMENT), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKADERI-I, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALGHAT DISTRICT. 4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON 7/04/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.4625/2008 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1; COPY OF SALE DEED NO.3630/1990 OF S.R.O., CHERPULASSERI. EXT.P2: COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1937/96 OF S.R.O. EXT.P3: COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DTD. 12/06/95. EXT.P4: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DTD. 17/12/02. EXT.P5: COPY OF ORDER IN O.A.481/79 OF FOREST TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD. EXT.P6: COPY OF APPLICATION DTD. 20/11/07 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN WPC. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 4625 OF 2008 A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th April, 2008. J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is for directing the 3rd respondent to accept land tax from the petitioner in respect of the property covered by Exts. P1 to P3 without insisting on a No- objection Certificate from the 4th respondent. Alternatively, petitioner also prays to direct the 4th respondent to issue an NOC in order to enable him to pay tax. 2. It is stated that the petitioner purchased the land as per Exts. P1 and P2 documents. The land originally belonged to one Karthiayani Amma. On the implementation of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting & Assignment) Act, 1971, there arose dispute regarding a portion of the land and the petitioner's transferor Smt. Karthiayani Amma had approached the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad by filing O.A. No. 481/76. By Ext. P5 order the Forest Tribunal W.P.(C) No. 4625 OF 2008 -2- exempted the land from the vesting provisions of the said Act and it is thereafter that the land was transferred to the petitioner. 3. According to the petitioner, he is in possession of the land and Ext. P3 is relied on in support of this contention. He also contends that tax was being paid by the petitioner and Ext. P4 is produced in support of his contention. 4. It is stated that despite all these, for the subsequent period when tax was offered, the 3rd respondent insisted that the petitioner should produce an NOC from the 4th respondent for accepting the tax. Thereupon the petitioner filed Ext. P6 to the 4th respondent and that also did not evoke any response and this writ petition has been filed. 5. Statement filed by the respondents is to the effect that though the petitioner's predecessor had filed O.A. No. 481/76 before the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad, inspite of Ext. P5 order, possession of the land has not been restored so far and that the area is still in the possession of the Forest Department. It is stated that the transfer in favour of the petitioner is invalid since the land has not been restored and that until the process is complete, and the property is surveyed, demarcated and restored to the petitioner, W.P.(C) No. 4625 OF 2008 -3- petitioner cannot be issued an NOC. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit disputing the averments in the statement filed. 6. True, by Ext. P5, the Forest Tribunal has granted exemption, but then land has not been restored to the petitioner and that is the clear stand taken by the respondents. While I am inclined to think that going by any standards, the inordinate delay in restoring the land cannot be justified going by any standards, at the same time, I am also not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that NOC should be issued at this stage. Unless the land is surveyed, demarcated and restored to the petitioner, it will be improper to direct the NOC to be issued by the 4th respondent. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, I feel, the appropriate order to be passed is to direct respondents 2 and 4 to take immediate steps for the restoration of the land, which they shall complete as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 months of production of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that once the land is restored, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the 3rd respondent and tender tax with sufficient documents proving possession of the land and thereupon the 3rd respondent shall W.P.(C) No. 4625 OF 2008 -4- accept tax from the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-