IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17597 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.S.SULAIMAN, S/O.SYED MUHAMMED, PUTHENVEEDU, PADAYATHIL, ERIMAYOOR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. RAMLATH, W/O.MOOSAKUTTY, PUTHENVEEDU, PADAYATHIL, ERIMAYOOR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FOREST AND WILD LIFE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. 2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NENMARA, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD. 4. ASST.CONSERVATOR OF FORREST (CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FOREST), OLAVAKODE, PALAKKAD. 678 681. GP SRI.P.M.PAULOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17597 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 26.4.1979 PASSED BY THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD IN O.A.170/1976 AND OTHERS EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.1984 IN MFA 343 AND OTHERS EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.11.1995 IN MFA 345/1979 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).26048 OF 2008 DATED 1.7.2009 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE UNNUMBERED IA AND CM APPLICATION NO.751/2011 DATED 7.2.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE STATE EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 13.3.2011 IN CM APPLICATION NO.751/2011 OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.3.2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DEPARTMENT (True Copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J .......................................... W.P.(C). 17597/2011 .......................................... Dated this the 11th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT First petitioner was the applicant in O.A.170/1976 and the second petitioner is stated to be the legal heir of the applicant in O.A.172/1976, both on the file of the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad. 2. The Tribunal disposed of the cases as per Ext.P1 allowing the applications. State filed M.F.A.Nos.343/1979 and 353/1979 before this Court against Ext.P1 judgment. By Ext.P2 judgment the appeals were dismissed. 3. Subsequently the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).26048/2008 seeking restoration of land. While admitting that writ petition, this Court passed an interim order dated 29.8.2008 directing that the respondents shall not cause any damage to the crop standing in the properties. 4. According to the petitioners, even in spite of the alleged vesting, petitioners were continuing to grow seasonal crops in W.P.(C).17597/11 2 the land and it was therefore, that such an order was passed by this Court. Finally by Ext.P4 judgment rendered on 1.7.2009, that writ petition was disposed of, the operative portion of which reads as under:- “Obviously therefore, all that remains is for the Custodian and Conservator of Forests to pass appropriate orders effecting the restoration in terms of the decision of the Forest Tribunal as affirmed by this Court. Let this be done within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 5. The time specified for restoration of land expired long ago, and an application made by the respondents therein for enlargement of time by nine months from 2.6.2010 is still pending, without obtaining any orders. In the meanwhile, the first petitioner who was the applicant in O.A.170/1976 was issued Ext.P7 notice dated 23.3.2010 whereby the second respondent informed him that though as per the order of the Tribunal, he is to be restored 10.5 acres of land situated in Survey Nos.39/1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 54/13 of Erimayoor Village, on W.P.(C).17597/11 3 survey, the actual extent has been found to be only 9.73 acres situated in Survey Nos.39/1, 2 and 3 of the aforesaid Village. First petitioner was asked to convey his willingness to accept the said extend of 9.73 acres in full and final settlement of his claims. First petitioner submits in categorical terms that he has informed acceptance of this offer and that he will be satisfied if 9.73 acres are restored. It is stated that despite the above, he has not been restored the land so far. Second petitioner also complains that although she has not been issued any notice similar to Ext.P7 referred to above, the land to be restored, consequent on the order of the Forest Tribunal in O.A.172/1976 has not been restored to her. 6. The grievance in this writ petition is that although the petitioners have been continuing to grow seasonal crops, they now want to plant rubber saplings and carry on other agricultural activities in the properties. Petitioners submit that the fact that the land has not been restored even in spite of the directions given by this Court, should not enable the respondents to prevent them from carrying on the aforesaid activities. W.P.(C).17597/11 4 7. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents as well. Although the learned Government Pleader fairly concedes that the land has not been restored, he has several justifications for the delay occurred. 8. It is the specific case of the petitioners that in the light of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C).26048/2008, they still continue to grow seasonal crops in the land. The liability to restore the land also can not be a matter of dispute. In such a situation, in my view, the fact that the land has not been formally restored to the petitioners should not affect their freedom to plant rubber saplings or other crops in the land in question. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the first petitioner will be permitted to grow rubber saplings or any other crops in 9.73 acres of land mentioned in Ext.P7 notice dated 23.3.2010 issued by the second respondent and the legal heir of the applicant in O.A.172/1976 will also be permitted to carry on similar activities in the land to W.P.(C).17597/11 5 be restored, pursuant to the order of the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad, in O.A.172/1976. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs