1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.02.2011 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.A.(MD) No.129 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 K.J.C.Jerald ... Appellant Vs. 1.The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Conservator of Forests, Tirunelveli Circle, Tirunelveli-7, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 19.11.2010 in W.P.(MD) No.11049 of 2010 on the file of this Court. Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.11049 of 2010: to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the records of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.5697/2007-Ku dated 22.7.2010 and quash the same and consequently directing the Respondents to permit the petitioner to complete the harvest of Karuvel Plantation standing in the land measuring 12.6 ha in 1996 Vagaikulam within the limits of Ambasamuthram Range in Tirunelveli Social Forestry within the period. For Appellant : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan For Respondents : Mr.R.Janakiramulu, Special Government Pleader JUDGMENT R.SUBBIAH,J. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.11049 of 2010, dated 19.11.2010 whereby the learned single Judge has rejected the prayer of the appellant to quash the order of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 first respondent, dated 22.07.2010 and to direct the respondents to permit the appellant to complete the harvest of Karuvel plantation standing in the land measuring 12.6 ha in 1996 Vagaikulam within the limits of Ambasamuthram Range in Tirunelveli social forestry. 2. The appellant was the highest bidder of the public auction held on 27.02.2007 in respect of the Karuvel plantation standing in the land measuring 12.6 h in 1996 Vagaikulam within the limits of Ambasamudram Range in Tirunelveli social forestry. The sale was confirmed only on 11.04.2007 and the agreement was executed in the prescribed form after completing the usual formalities on 22.08.2007. The date of expiry for completion was 31.08.2007 and on account of the inordinate delay in executing the agreement, the tank wherein karuvel trees was standing, was filled up with water before issuing necessary orders. Since the tank was filled up with water, the appellant could not cut and remove the karuvel trees standing therein. Hence, a request made by the appellant on 04.10.2007. The respondent with a delay of 9 months permission was granted to the appellant on 30.06.2008 for removing the karuvel trees by extending the time only the extension was issued to the appellant only on 27.07.2008. Hence, the appellant was compelled to ask for another extension. Thereafter, the appellant made his requisition on 27.01.2009 for granting further extension. Since the tank was filled up with water for majority of the period, the roots of about 20% of the trees perished. Hence, the appellant has incurred heavy loss. In the said situation, the second respondent has rejected the claim of the appellant for extension by his proceedings dated 29.06.2010 and issued direction to the first respondent to take action to forfeit the security deposit as per the conditions imposed in the sale agreement. Consequently, by proceedings, dated 22.07.2010, the first respondent directed the appellant to show cause for the forfeiture of the security deposit remitted by him. The appellant has sent an explanation to the said show cause notice by reply dated 30.07.2010. Finally, the appellant has filed the present writ petition for the prayer stated supra. 3. The prayer of the appellant was resisted by the respondents inter alia contending that though sufficient time was granted to the appellant, he has not completed the harvest. The learned single Judge on consideration of submissions made on either side, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the entire materials available on record. 5. On perusal of the materials available on record, we find that the issue whether there is any fault on the side of the respondent in granting extension of time or whether, the appellant has failed to complete the cutting and removing in spite of the extension given by the respondents is purely a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in this writ appeal. The learned single Judge has correctly observed that if there is any breach in terms of agreement that can only result in damages and the only remedy for damages is as per https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 terms under the agreement and not by way of writ petition and thus dismissed the writ petition. It is a well accepted proposition of law that disputed facts cannot be decided in the writ petition. 6. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Conservator of Forests, Tirunelveli Circle, Tirunelveli-7, Tirunelveli District. +1 CC to Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Advocate (SR.No.3907) +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.5959) W.A.(MD) No.129 of 2011 01.02.2011 sms NSV/9.3.11/3P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/