IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2493 of 2011(O) --------------------------------------- OA NO.28/2008 OF TRIBUNAL FOR ECOLOGICALLY FRAGILE LANDS, PALAKKAD ------------------------- PETITIONER -------------------- SHAJAN K JOHN, KALLUPALATHINGAL HOUSE MUTTAMBALAM KARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, P.V.JOHN,AGED 77 YEARS,S/O.P.V.VARGHESE, PARAKADAVIL HOUSE,NATTAKOM VILLAGE,PALLAM P.O KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER IBRAHIM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT OF FOREST, GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001. 2. THE CUSTODIAN OF ECOLOGICALLY FRAGILE LANDS, FOREST HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 014. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MANNARKAD FOREST DIVISION,MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.PIN- 678 582. 4. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MANNARKAD RANGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.PIN- 678 582. 5. THE DEPUTY FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PALAKKAYAM FOREST DEPOT,MANNARKAD VIA PALAKKAD DISTRICT.PIN- 678 591. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(C)NO.2493/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE OA NO.28/2008 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL FOR ECOLOGICALLY FRAGILE LANDS (PALAKKAD) P2 COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24/11/2008 OF THE LEARNED ADVOCATE COMMISSION. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/8/2009 IN IA NO.17/2008 IN OA NO.28/2008 OF THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL FOR ECOLOGICALLY FRAGILE LANDS(PALAKKAD) P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9/4/2010 IN WP(C)NO.29489/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P5 COPY OF THE IA NO.50 FILED IN OA NO.28/2011. P6 COPY OF THE IA NO.51 FILED IN OA NO.28/2011. P7 COPY OF THE IA NO.52 FILED IN OA NO.28/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.2493 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 02nd day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Though prayer in this petition is for a direction to the Tribunal for Ecologically Fragile Lands (First Additional District Judge, Palakkad) (for short, “the Tribunal”) to issue certified copy of order on I.A. Nos.50, 51 and 52 of 2011 and to keep proceedings of the Tribunal pending until the said copy is issued, since I have obtained the gist of orders on the aforesaid applications through the Registrar (Judicial), I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition as if it is in challenge of the orders on the aforesaid applications since otherwise it will only result in unnecessary delay in the disposal of the Original Application before the Tribunal. 2. Petitioner filed O.A. No.28 of 2008 before the Tribunal for a declaration that 34 acres out of 99.21 acres of rubber estate purchased by petitioner is not ecologically fragile land as understood in Act 21 of 2005. There was an interim order passed by the Tribunal permitting petitioner to take latex from the rubber trees in the property as per order dated 04.08.2009 on I.A. No.17 O.P(C) No.2493 of 2011 -: 2 :- of 2008. The Department challenged that order in W.P.(C) No.29489 of 2009 and when that Writ Petition came up for hearing, this Court disposed of the same vide Ext.P4, judgment dated April 09, 2010 on the submission of learned counsel on both sides that the Original Application could be disposed of as early as possible. This Court directed the Tribunal to dispose of Original Application No.28 of 2008 as early as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of appearance which was fixed as 05.05.2010. It is also directed that until such disposal operation of the order on I.A. No.17 of 2008 will stand in abeyance. It is not disputed that though the period of three months fixed as per Ext.P4, judgment expired by 05.08.2010, time was being extended, be it on the application of parties or on the request of the Tribunal. Now it has reached a stage where petitioner has adduced his evidence and evidence of the respondents is being recorded. Certain witnesses for the respondents have already been examined. At that stage petitioner filed Exts.P5 to P7, applications to re-open evidence of petitioner, recall R.W.2 for further cross-examination and to summon Dr.S. Sankar who is said to be a member of the Expert Committee appointed by the Tribunal to ascertain the ecological O.P(C) No.2493 of 2011 -: 3 :- feature of the land in question. Those applications were dismissed by the Tribunal. 3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader for Forest. As I stated though request in this proceeding is only for a direction to issue certified copy of the impugned orders and keep further proceedings of the Tribunal in abeyance, I considered it proper to dispose of the Original Petition on merit having obtained the gist of the orders through the Registrar (Judicial). Petitioner contended that having regard to the circumstances it is necessary to recall and further examine R.W.2 and examine Dr.S.Sankar as a witness. It is contended that recalling and examination as aforesaid are necessary for a just and fair decision of the case. 4. Learned Government Pleader in response contended that attempt of petitioner is to protract the proceedings and at any rate, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. It is further contended that if at all permission is granted to petitioner to adduce evidence, right of respondents to adduce further evidence consequent to the petitioner adducing further evidence may be reserved. It is contended that time fixed by this Court as per Ext.P4, judgment expired by 05.08.2010 and last O.P(C) No.2493 of 2011 -: 4 :- deadline fixed was on 29.07.2011 which also has expired. 5. True, this Court has fixed time limit for disposal of the case. But I am inclined to think that parties must be given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. I have gone through the report of the Registrar (Judicial) on the gist of orders dismissing I.A. Nos.50 to 52 of 2011. I.A. No.50 of 2011 for re-opening evidence was dismissed for the reason that petitioner and others have adduced elaborate evidence and examined as many as 8 witnesses and the case is at the stage of hearing after the evidence on both sides has been closed. I.A. No.51 of 2011 was filed to recall R.W.2. In that application it is ordered that since I.A. No.50 of 2011 to re- open the evidence is dismissed, I.A. No.51 of 2011 is also dismissed. Order on I.A. No.52 of 2011 is that application to re- open evidence in I.A. No.50 of 2011 was dismissed, I.A. No.52 of 2011 is also dismissed. 6. Having heard counsel on both sides I am inclined to think that parties must be given further opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. No doubt, time fixed by this Court as per Ext.P4, judgment has expired. In that situation parties can request this Court (in W.P(C) No.29489 O.P(C) No.2493 of 2011 -: 5 :- of 2009) to extend time limit for disposal of the case. The Tribunal has reported that since elaborate evidence has been adduced by the parties, Tribunal require two months' time to dispose of the Original Application. Having regard to the circumstances stated this Original Petition is allowed in the following lines: (a) Orders dismissing Exts.P5 to P7, applications will stand stand set aside and those applications are allowed. (b) Petitioner and second applicant in O.A. No.28 of 2008 are permitted to recall R.W.2 for further cross-examination. (c) It is directed that summoning of Dr.S. Sankar, member of the Expert Committee appointed by the Tribunal shall be done only after evidence of respondents is over and then he shall be examined as a witness for petitioner. O.P(C) No.2493 of 2011 -: 6 :- (d) If in consequence of further examination of R.W2 and examination of Dr.S.Sankar as witness it is necessary for respondents to adduce further evidence, I make it clear that it is open to the respondents to adduce such further evidence as well. The Tribunal for Ecologically Fragile Lands (First Additional District Judge, Palakkad) is directed to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the matter as may be directed in I.A. No.12100 of 2011 in W.P(C) No.29489 of 2011. In view of the above order it is directed that I.A. No.12100 of 2011 in W.P(C) No.29489 of 2009 filed by the petitioner herein and second applicant in O.A. No.28 of 2008 shall be placed before the learned Judge who disposed of W.P(C) No.29489 of 2009 by Ext.P4, judgment. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv