IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 12390 of 2007(Y) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. AYYAPPAN, S/O.RAMASWAMY NAIDU, AGED 54, PUTHADI, SANTHAN PARA VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT MELMANGALAM P.O., PERIYAKULAM TALUK, THENI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 2. R.SELVOM, S/O.RAJ NAIDU, AGED 42, JANAKI ESTATE, KURANJU PARA, RAJAKKAD VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SANTHAN PARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ..2/- ...2.... WPC.NO.12390/2007 Y J U D G M E N T When the case was called on 5/2/08, there was no representation. Today also there is no representation. Hence this Writ Petition is dismissed for default. 7/03/2008 Sd/- Antony Dominic, Judge /True Copy/ P.S.to Judge Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).12390/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. 1st petitioner claims to be the owner of 80.70 Ares of land in Sy.No.94/3 of Santhanpara Village. Ext.P1 is the patta, Ext.P2 is the possession certificate and Ext.P3 is the receipt evidencing payment of basic tax. Insofar as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, he claims to be owner of 57 Ares of land in the aforesaid Sy.No. Ext.P4 is the patta, Ext.P5 is the possession certificate and Ext.P6 is the receipt evidencing payment of basic tax. 2. According to the petitioners, they have planted eucalyptus in their respective holdings which are matured and are to be cut and removed. It is stated that they had applied to the 2nd respondent for a certificate to the effect that the eucalyptus mentioned in the applications are grown in their properties covered by Exts.P1 and P4 pattas. There was no progress in the matter and therefore the writ petition was filed praying for a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue a certificate as sought for by them. W.P.(C).12390/07 2 3. However in the counter affidavit filed, it is stated by the 2nd respondent that there are civil disputes pending between the petitioner on the one side and the party respondents on the other. It is stated that in view of the pendency of the aforesaid disputes, he was not able to settle the disputes and therefore was unable to issue a certificate. 4. As far as the civil dispute mentioned above is concerned, it is stated that in 1995, petitioners had given power of attorney to one Muraleedharan who, in March 1995, had executed an agreement for sale in favour of his son, the 4th respondent herein. 4th respondent filed a Suit before the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam as O.S.86/1999, against the petitioners, their assignees and his father, the power of attorney holder, praying for setting aside document No.162/97 and for specific performance of the agreement of sale executed by the 3rd respondent in favour of the 4th respondent. Ext.P7 is the judgment rendered by the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam, in which document No.162/97 was set aside. It is stated that thereafter Varkichan and Benzar, to whom the petitioners had assigned the W.P.(C).12390/07 3 properties, filed O.S.No.141/2002 for declaration of their possession over the land covered by Exts.P1 and P4 pattas and for an injunction against the petitioners. That Suit was dismissed for default as is seen from Ext.P8 judgment. According to the petitioners, Exts.P7 and P8 judgments have become final and that the Civil dispute between the parties have come to an end. 5. Even in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4 in this writ petition, apart from stating about the aforesaid Suits, they have no case that there is any civil dispute pending adjudication between the parties now. If that be the situation, the civil disputes are not pending and if so, the reason stated for declining to issue the certificate sought for by the petitioners is unsustainable. 6. Although the learned Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions obtained from the 4th respondent submitted that the land in question is a part of the Cardamom Hill Reserve and that tree cutting is prohibited, I do not think, in so far as the enquiry in relation to the certificate sought for by the petitioners is concerned, these objections are relevant. Of course those W.P.(C).12390/07 4 issues may be relevant as and when clearance is sought for cutting and removal of timber from the land in question. Therefore insofar is the 2nd respondent is concerned, he need only to verify whether the land, where the trees are planted belong to the petitioners and if so, he need only to issue a certificate to that effect. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to conduct an enquiry on the application made by the petitioners for certificate to the effect that eucalyptus in question stand in the land belonging to them and covered by Exts.P1 and P2, and if satisfied on the materials and enquiry, issue a certificate to that effect. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs