IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 5403 of 2007(R) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- MANEERA MALAYORA KARSHAKA SANGHAM, REG.NO.Q.34/84, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, K.VARADARAJAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. KUNJUKUNJU, MANEERA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.T.S.JOHN, MR.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, (PROTECTION), KOLLAM. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KONNI. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, NADUVATHIMOOZHI RANGE, KONNI. R1 TO R5 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER MR. POULOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.5403/2007-R: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 18/12/2003 IN O.P. NO. 11589/1994. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 26/06/1984 SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 26/05/1993 IN O.P. NO. 3899/1993. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DTD. 24/03/1998. EXT.P.4.A: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 20/10/2005 IN O.P. NO. 4656/1997. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 04/10/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER SANGHAM TO THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DTD. 24/05/2000 OF THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 27/11/1992 OF THE DEPUTY RANGER OF KOKKATHODU FOREST RANGE. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 08/12/2004 N1.2228/C1/2004/FOREST OF THE R.1. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPORT NO. 1/05 DTD. 29/04/06 OF THE RANGE OFFICER, NADUVATHMOOZHI. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM GOVT. TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 26/08/94. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 26/05/2005. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DTD. 25/04/1992. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DTD. 31/12/94. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 01/07/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI. EXT.P.14.A: COPY OF THE RECEIPT RECEIVED FROM THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE -R1.(A): COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.296/2005/F&WLD DT. 26/05/2005. ANNEXURE -R1.(B): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 18/06/1985 IN O.P. 4062/84. ANNEXURE -R1.(C): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 10/11/1988 IN OP. NO. 8536/88. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.5403 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT In this writ petition filed by the President of Maneera Malayora Sangham, a Society registered under the Charitable Societies Registration Act, the prayer sought for is to quash Ext.P11 and to direct the first respondent not to evict the members of the petitioner from the lands in which they are now allegedly residing. Although there are several documents produced by the petitioner and the pleading in the writ petition is a voluminous one, in my view the issue lies in a very narrow compass. 2. Petitioner and its members have been clamoring the assignment of forest land allegedly in their possession on the ground that they are in occupation of the land, prior to 1.1.1977 and that the Government had taken a policy decision to assign such lands to its occupants. Several writ WP(c).No.5403/07 2 petitions were filed in this court and Exts.P1,P3 and P4 are three of the judgments in such writ petitions. 3. In so far as this writ petition is concerned, it is relevant to state that, in Ext.P1 judgment rendered on 18.12.2003 in O.P.No.11589/94, this court directed the first respondent, the State of Kerala to take appropriate action on the request of the petitioner for assignment of the land as indicated in Exts.P9 and P10 in the light of the reports referred to in the judgment. Exts.P9 and P10 reflected the policy decision of the Government to assign the lands to those who occupied the lands before 1.1.1977 and the reports referred to therein are report dated 24.5.2000 bearing No.1-6998/2000 of Tahsildar, Kozhanchery, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P6 in this writ petition. The other materials referred to is the letter No.C-5.46137/99 of the District Collector, Pathanamthitta and also report Nos. 25 dated 22.5.2002 submitted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kottayam to the District Collector, a copy of which is WP(c).No.5403/07 3 produced as Ext.P7 in this writ petition. 4. Subsequently in Ext.P4(a) judgment rendered in O.P.No.4656/97 dated 20.10.2005, it was also directed that the respondents shall consider the claim for assignment of the land in pursuance to the applications made by them with notice to them. Ultimately, Ext.P11 is the order that has been passed on 26.5.2005. A reading of this order shows that the first respondent was not satisfied with the joint verification conducted in 1992 and in order to decide the matter as directed in Ext.P1, had got a fresh joint verification conducted. In the joint verification thus conducted, it would appear that they have realized that there were only two pre 1.1.1977 occupants, having possession of 75 cents and 25 cents respectively. Except recognizing the claim of the aforesaid two occupants, claims of the other members of the petitioner for assignment of land allegedly in their occupation, has been fully negatived. It is challenging Ext.P11, that this writ petition is filed. WP(c).No.5403/07 4 5. In my view Ext.P11 needs to be invalidated mainly for the reason that though it was passed in pursuance to Ext.P1 and P4(a) judgments, a reading of Ext.P11 itself shows that as against the positive direction in Ext.P1 directing that the matter shall be decided in the light of the policy decision as reflected in Exts.P9 and P10 and also in the light of Exts.P6 and P7 report and the letter of the District Collector, there is not even a reference to the policy decision or report or letter which were directed to be considered. Further, though Ext.P11 order was passed much later to Ext.P4(a) judgment, wherein the first respondent was directed to decide the matter with notice to the parties, there is no case for the respondents that the decision was taken with notice to the parties. On these two short grounds Ext.P11 deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P11 and direct that the first respondent shall reconsider the claim of the petitioner for assignment of the land, which is allegedly in their occupation prior to 1.1.1977, in the light of Exts.P6 and P7 reports and WP(c).No.5403/07 5 the letter of the District Collector mentioned in Ext.P1 judgment and in the light of Exts.P9 and P10 mentioned therein. This shall be done with notice to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/