IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34521 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.VEERANKUTTY,AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIMAMMU HAJEE,RESIDING AT PAROKOT HOUSE, KURAVANCHIRA,EDATHUNATTUKARA,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND CUSTODIAN 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MANNARKKAD,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE WILDLIFE WARDEN,SILENT VALLEY NATIONAL PARK,MANNARKKAD,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR,MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT(FOREST),SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL.AG. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34521 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the owner of 25 acres of rubber plantation situated in Sy.No.235/A1, 2 of Kottapadam Village of Mannarkkad Taluk. The property was initially notified as an ecologically fragile land in terms of Section 3(1) of Ordinance 6/2000. Subsequently, Ext.P1 order de-notifying the land was issued on 21/4/2007. In this writ petition, what is sought for by the petitioner is a direction for restoration of the land in pursuance to Ext.P1. 2. The case was adjourned with a direction to the respondents to obtain instructions in the matter. Today, when the matter came up for orders, Additional Advocate General submits that, the land of which the petitioner claims ownership, is a part of a larger extent of ecologically fragile land, and that, realising that Ext.P1 was issued on the basis of erroneous appreciation of facts, notice dated 10/12/2010 was issued to the petitioner proposing to recall Ext.P1. It is stated that the matter was posted for hearing to 29/12/2010 and that at the request of the petitioner, the WPC No. 34521/10 :2 : proceedings have been adjourned. 3. Although, it is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings now initiated are illegal and that Ext.P1 should be implemented, irrespective of the same, now that proceedings for recalling Ext.P1 have been initiated, at this stage, there arise no question of this Court directing the implementation of Ext.P1. In the circumstances, the only course open to the petitioner is to get the proceedings now initiated finalised, and depending upon the outcome of such proceedings, seek implementation of Ext.P1 or such other order that is passed. 4. Now that the proceedings are pending and as expeditious completion is warranted, 1st respondent is directed to conclude the proceedings with notice to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp