IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36921 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.M. ALEXANDER, KOIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST & WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CUSTODIAN OF ECOLOGICALLY FRAGILE LANDS - CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. FOREST OFFIER,KOZHIKODE. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.N SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.36921 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th December, 2008 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, an extent of 59 acres out of 100 acres of land, in Koilandy Taluk was exempted from vesting under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting & Assignment) Act, 1971 as per Exhibit-P1 order passed by the Tribunal. Application was filed by the petitioner and Sri.K.V. Joseph. By Exhibit-P2 judgment this Court directed that 59 acres be surveyed and demarcated. But the property has not come into the possession of the petitioner so far. 2. In the meanwhile, by Exhibit-P3, the petitioner was informed by the Divisional Forest Officer that an extent of 0.974 hectares of land was notified under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003. Petitioner has submitted Exhibit-P8 application for de-notification of the same. Petitioner refers to the fact that another extent of 11.75 W.P ( C) No.36921 of 2008 2 hectares of land stated to be cultivated with rubber, was also similarly treated as Ecologically Fragile Lands and an application filed by him for de-notification of the same was rejected. The present writ petition seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit-P8 application for de- notification. 3. Sri.Renjith Thampan, learned Special Government Pleader submits that notification is dated 2.5.2006., that is after the Act came into force. Therefore, the custodian cannot de-notify the same. This aspect is refuted by Sri.Mohanakannan, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. It is open to the custodian to consider Exhibit- P8. If he finds that he is incompetent to deal with the application for de-notification, he may indicate the same in a reply to be given by him on Exhibit-P3. Needful shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P.(C) No. 36921/2008 -3- The second and third sentences of paragraph 2 of the Judgment dated 16/12/2008 in W.P.(C) 36921/2008 U is corrected and modified as follows as per order dated 5/02/2009 in I.A. 1313/2009: “The petitioner has submitted Ext. P4 application for de-notification of the same and the same was rejected.” The petitioner refers to the fact that another extent of 11.75 Hectares of land stated to be cultivated with Rubber was also similarly treated as Ecologically Fragile Lands and an application filed by him for de-notification is pending as Ext. P8” Registrar(Judicial)