IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36863 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. NARAYANAN EZHUTHASSAN, AMMATHODI VEEDU, EZHUVANTHALA P.O., NELLAYA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKADU. 2. PARAMAN EZHUTHASSAN, AMMATHODI VEEDU, EZHUVANTHALA P.O., NELLAYA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKADU. BY ADV. SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SMT.ASWATHI APPUKUTTAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PALAKKAD - 678 009. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.36863 OF 2010(G) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The grievance raised in this writ petition is that based on Ext.P2 order in O.A.No.903/1975 on the files of the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad, the land held by the petitioners and described in Ext.P2 order is still not restored to them. 2. Case was adjourned for the Government Pleader to obtain instructions. On instructions, the Government Pleader submits that the survey number of the property mentioned in Ext.P2 and the survey number of the property available on field are different. It is also submitted that the boundaries of the property also varies with what is mentioned in Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal. 3. Government Pleader further submits that to get the aforesaid inconsistency corrected, petitioners had filed I.A.Nos.150/2009,151/2009 and 152/2009 before the Tribunal also and that the Tribunal had rejected the I.As. According to him, it is because of the above reason that further action based on Ext.P2 could not be taken. WPC.No.36863 /2010 :2 : 4. Petitioners can only seek implementation of Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal. This order mentions the survey number and boundaries of the property which is allegedly in the possession of the petitioners. If on verification, the survey number and boundaries of the property mentioned in Ext.P2 order do not tally with the property in the possession of the petitioners, this court cannot direct that further action should be taken based on Ext.P2 order. From the submissions made by the Government Pleader, it is also obvious that the attempt of the petitioner to get the survey number and boundaries mentioned in Ext.P2 corrected, by filing the aforesaid interlocutory applications, also did not succeed and the matter was not carried in appeal before this court. In such circumstances, this court will not be justified in passing any order for the restoration of the property as sought for in this writ petition. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.36863 /2010 :3 :