IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 34963 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUHAMMED ABDUL RAZACK, S/O.K.M.SYEDUPPA RAWTHER, AGED 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT KODUVAYUR, CHITTUR TALUK, MENTALLY RETARDED PERSON REPRESENTED BY AYISHUMMA, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, KOOLAVEEDU, T.K.THANA, KODUVAYUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CUSTODIAN EX OFFICIO SPECIAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE (FOREST SPECIAL) DEPARTMENT, GP SRI.P.M.POULOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 34963 of 2008 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.724 OF 1966 DATED 8.8.1966 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. FILED BEFORE THE FOREST TRIBUNAL LEADING TO O.A.181 OF 1976 DATED 23.2.1976 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ALLOWING THE O.A. DATED 24.7.1979 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.1.2008 FILED BEFORE THE FOREST TRIBUNAL EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FOREST TRIBUNAL DATED 3.5.2008 (True Copy) P.A To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).34963/2008 .............................................. Dated this the 11th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5 order passed by the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad. 2. Ext.P2 is the copy of the O.A filed before the Forest Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner. Though in the schedule to the application about 12.15 acres of land was mentioned against the column in the application for furnishing the description of the property involved in the O.A, “3.5 acres” were mentioned. The Tribunal examined the claim for exemption with reference to the aforesaid 3.5 acres of land and rendered Ext.P3 order exempting 3.5 acres from vesting. This order is dated 24.7.1979. 3. Long thereafter, on 10.1.2008, Ext.P4 application was made seeking amendment of the extent of the land exempted as per Ext.P3 order and the petitioner wanted 12.15 acres to be incorporated as against 3.5 acres mentioned in Ext.P3 order. This application made on behalf of the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P5 and it is this order under challenge. W.P.(C).34963/08 2 4. A reading of Ext.P5 order shows that according to the Tribunal, in Ext.P3 order, it examined the claim of the petitioner for exemption only with reference to 3.5 acres. Perusal of Ext.P3 order also shows that this stand of the Tribunal is factually correct. In the said circumstances, the Tribunal could not have enlarged the extent of the land any further. Therefore, no illegality can be found on the Tribunal in passing Ext.P5 order. The writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. 5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner insists for a direction for restoration of the land covered by Ext.P3, since there is no specific prayer in this regard, I leave it open to the petitioner to move the authorities of the Forest Department for the said purpose. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs