IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 2298 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32869/2008 Dated 09/12/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- SATHYARAJAN,S/O.LATE APPUNNI, ATHANICKAL HOUSE,OTTAPPALAM TALUK, KOONATHARA AMSOM,PANAYUR DESOM, PANAYUR P.O.,OTTAPPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM SMT.BINDHU M.CHUMMAR SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS & CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,OLAVAKKODE,PALAKKAD. 4. THE CHIEF CONSERVATION OF FORESTS, FOREST DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER(FOREST), SRI.P.M. POULOSE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.2298 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. One Usman, Pathumma and Muhammed moved the Forest Tribunal and obtained Ext.P2 verdict. The appellant/petitioner claims that he is the assignee of the parcels belonging to the said persons. That transaction in favour of the appellant is stated to be sometime in 1996. He has filed the writ petition on the premise that even the Forest Tribunal had found that the land dealt with by the appellant in terms of the assignment in his favour in 1996 which earlier belongs to Usman and others, did not form part of any private forest or any land which the Government had not given possession to Usman and others. The appellant accordingly states that the respondents who are Government officials are unauthorisedly W.A. No.2298 of 2009 2 interfering with the appellant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the holding and on that ground he moved the learned Single Judge for direction to the respondent officials. 2. After considering the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has directed that if the petitioner produces materials before the Custodian of Forests regarding the claim made by him including the assignment from Usman and others to him, that would be considered and the land would be restored to its original owner. 3. This writ appeal is filed and has been entertained after condoning the delay. The plea raised in this writ appeal is that the appellant is in possession and nothing remained to be delivered to the appellant. His attempt is only to protect the possession already available. This is also a matter which, prima facie, has to be considered by the Custodian of Forests on the basis of the documents that the appellant may produce to show that he is the successor in interest of the rights available under W.A. No.2298 of 2009 3 Exts.P1 and P2 decisions of the Forest Tribunal. Still further, if the appellant has any further grievance, or if the predecessors in interest are entitled to any further relief, regarding the identity of the property, relief can be appropriately sought for even from the Forest Tribunal. We deem it inappropriate for this Court to interfere with such disputed questions of fact, particularly on issues relatable to possession and identity of lands. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment or enlarge the scope of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge vns