IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33580 of 2010(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- P.M.KESAVAN, NADUMANA, KARAYANGANAM,PANATHOOR P.O PANATHADY VILLAGE,KASARGOD BY ADV. SMT.REENA ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,TRIVANDRUM-1 2. DIVISIONAL OF FOREST OFFICER, KANNUR DIVISIONO,KANNUR-12 3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KANHANGAD RANGE, KASARGOD-671 532 4. THE FORESTER, PANATHADY FOREST SECTION, KANHANGAD FOREST RANGE-671 532 5. VILLAGE OFFICER,PANATHADY VILLAGE,. HOSDURG TALUK,KASARAGOD-671 532 R1 TO R5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 33580 of 2010 V ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that, as per Ext.P1 patta, he had title over 3 acres of land situated in R.S.No.314/A of Panathady village. It is stated that subsequently 1.25 acres of land was treated as vested forest and the petitioner continues in possession and ownership of the balance 1.75 acres of land. According to the petitioner, in order to avail of financial assistance from a commercial bank, he wanted to mortgage the property and the bank insisted that the petitioner should produce a No Objection Certificate from the forest authorities for the reason that the land is near to a vested forest. 2. It is stated that thereupon he made Ext.P4 application to the second respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that though Ext.P5 report was submitted by the fourth respondent confirming that the petitioner has title and possession over 1.75 acres, on an unfounded allegation that W.P.(C) No.33580/10 : 2 : the petitioner has trespassed into the forest land, his request for NOC was rejected by Ext.P6 order. It is challenging Ext.P6 and seeking a direction for issuance of NOC, this writ petition is filed. 3. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter. According to him, the petitioner's land is situated in R.S.No.314/A of Panathady village, which is situated adjacent to a vested forest. It is stated that on receipt of Ext.P4 application, the land held by the petitioner was surveyed by the forest authorities and that it was found that the petitioner has encroached into the adjacent forest land and is carrying on agricultural activities. It is stated that it is on account of the above reason, the petitioner's application for NOC was rejected. 4. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has possession only over 1.75 acres of land, which is fully covered by Ext.P1 patta. It is also submitted that his application for NOC should not have been rejected relying W.P.(C) No.33580/10 : 3 : only on the unilateral survey conducted by the forest authorities and without even the participation of the Revenue officials. 5. As stated by the respondents, if the petitioner has trespassed into the forest land and used any potion thereof, the respondents cannot be faulted for what they have done. However, it being a disputed factual issue, I feel a fresh survey of the property of the petitioner involving the fifth respondent should resolve the dispute. Therefore, I direct that respondents 3 and 4 will get the property in the possession of the petitioner surveyed afresh with notice to him, which also involving the fifth respondent and that on such survey, if it is found that the property possessed by the petitioner is fully covered by his title deed, fresh orders on the application made by the petitioner for NOC shall be passed. This shall be done by respondents 3 and 4 within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C) No.33580/10 : 4 : 6. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment and writ petition before respondents 3 and 4 for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge