IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 SA.No. 253 of 1996() ----------------------------- AS.107/1986 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA OS.186/1984 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR, PUNALUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS IN AS. /DEFENDANTS IN OS. ----------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA , REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. HARIHARAN ACHARI, FOREST RANGE OFFICER, ANCHEL. 3. KARTHIKEYAN, FORESTER, FOREST RANGE OFFICER, ANCHAL. 4. KURIAN, FORESTER, MEENKULAM SECTION, ANCHAL RANGE. 5. MANIKANDAN, GUARD, FOREST RANGE OFFICE, ANCHAL. 6. SIVASANKARA PILLAI, GUARD, MEENKULAM SECTION, ANCHAL RANGE. 7. BHANU, GUARD, MEENKULAM SECTION, ANCHAL RANGE. 8. SUKUMARAN, GUARD, MEENKULAM SECTION, ANCHAL RANGE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.PRAKASH S.A. NO.253/1996 RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN A.S. /PLAINTIFF IN OS. ------------------------ MUHAMMED KANNU RAWTHER, ELAIS, BUSINESS, CHARUVILA VEEDU, ADAPPAUPARA, YEROOR MURI AND VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON 04/06/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.A. No. 253 of 1996 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT The defendants, namely the State and its officers, in O.S.186 of 1984 before the Munsiff's Court, Punalur are the appellants. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are available before the trial court. 2. The plaint schedule property having an extent of 1.86 cents including 46 cents in Sy. No.745/1/1059 has been in the possession and enjoyment of the father of the plaintiff, and later it was allotted to the share of the plaintiff. The property has an old compound wall on its southern side. 46 cents scheduled as item No.3 is revenue puramboke and is an assignable land. The plaintiff claimed that he has preferred an application for assignment of that 46 cents of land as L.A. 112/82. The property on the southern side beyond the compound wall is reserve forest. Plaint S.A.253/1996. 2 item No.3 is a small building, wherein the relatives of the plaintiff are residing. Without any authority and power, the defendants cut and removed the trees standing in the property on 11.8.1984 and also pulled down the building. Due to the acts of the defendants, the plaintiff has suffered damages to the tune of Rs.7000/-. It is pointed out that the defendants had no right to intrude into the property and destroy the building and the improvements. On the basis of these allegations, the suit was laid. 3. The defendants resisted the suit. They pointed out that the property claimed by the plaintiff as item No.3 is a portion of the reserve forest. Property of the forest department including the said property falling under Coup No.III of Maravan Chira has been transferred to the Oil Palm India Limited. However the forest department retains the ownership over the property. On an inspection on 11.9.1982 the Range Officer found that 46 cents comprised in Sy. No.745/1/1059 has been reduced into his possession by the plaintiff. Even though the plaintiff was directed not to carry S.A.253/1996. 3 on any activity in the property, he refused to obey it. It is pointed out that the Pathanapuram Tahsildar has addressed the Forest Range Officer, Anchal as to whether there had been any objection in assigning the 46 cents based on the application said to have been filed by the plaintiff. The defendants claimed that in the meeting held on 22.1.1983 it was decided by the Forest officers to evict unauthorised occupation of the plaintiff over the 46 cents of land and the Forest Range Officer, Anchal was directed to take necessary steps. Taking recourse to Section 66 of the Kerala Forest Act, they evicted the plaintiff. That was done in good faith. The claim of the plaintiff that he had been in possession of the 46 cents of land for a long period is without basis. Apart from the fact that he has no title to the property, he is not more than a rank trespasser. Therefore he is not entitled to any relief. 4. The trial court raised necessary issues for consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 7 and the documents marked as Exts.A1 to A5 S.A.253/1996. 4 from the side of the plaintiff. Defendants had D.W.1 examined and Ext.B1 marked. Exts.C1 to C6 are the various reports and plans filed by the Commissioner. On an appreciation of the evidence in the case, the trial court came to the conclusion that the defendants had no authority to do what they had done and decreed the suit. 5. The defendants carried the matter in appeal. The lower appellate court concurred with the trial court and dismissed the appeal. That brings the defendant to this court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants points out that the courts below were not justified in decreeing the suit. It is very vehemently contended that the plaint schedule item No.3 is a portion of the reserve forest. If that be so, the action taken under Section 66 of the Kerala Forest Act is within the powers of the forest officers. If the plaintiff had any grievance in the matter, he had to approach the forest authorities for appropriate reliefs. It is pointed out that the mere fact that the plaintiff has applied for S.A.253/1996. 5 assignment, does not confer him with any right. It was finally contended that no injunction can be granted against the true owner. 7. There seems to be considerable force in the above argument. Even going by the plaint averment, the plaintiff has no manner of right over 46 cents of land which even as admitted by the plaintiff is a revenue puramboke. True, the defendants have claimed that it is a part of the reserve forest and the plaintiff has no manner of right over the same. The courts below were inclined to hold that there is no evidence to show that the plaint schedule property was a reserve forest. They relied on the commission report to come to the conclusion that the entire property remain as a single holding. 8. Assuming it to be revenue property, the plaintiff cannot claim any manner of right over the same. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the plaintiff is not more than a rank trespasser. The State can take such steps as are available to them to evict the S.A.253/1996. 6 plaintiff. He had no manner of right to put up any building or make improvements in the property. As rightly contended, the plaintiff cannot seek an injunction against the State, who is the true owner of the property. The courts below have erred in this regard. In the result, this appeal is allowed, the judgments and decrees of the courts below are set aside and the suit will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb. S.A.253/1996. 7 P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.A. No. 253 of 1996 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 04.06.2010