IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36647 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.274/1993 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: --------------- U.V.JOSE, S/O.U.A.VARGHESE, OOKKAN HOUSE, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.H.BADARUDDIN MS.AYSHA RAHMAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FOREST, ARANYA BHAVAN, FOREST COMPLEX, OLAVANCODE. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NEMMARA. 4. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KOLLENGODE RANGE, PALAKKAD. 5. THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER, DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD. SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER (FORESTS), MR.P.M.POULOSE FOR R1 TO R5. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.36647 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To call for the records and hear the writ petition. ii) To direct the court below to reconsider Ext.P2 order by taking note of the additional evidence from the petitioner to hold Ext.P1 property is not a Forest Land in the light of Ext.P3 final decree and Ext.P4 notification.” 2. Petitioner is the auction purchaser in E.P.No.89 of 2000 in O.S.No.274 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad. After issuance of sale sannath in his favour when he applied for delivery of the property sold, the respondents filed a petition objecting the delivery contending that the property is a vested forest under the provisions of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Economically Fragile Land) Act, 2003, hereinafter referred to as the KF(VMEFL) Act. A gazette notification was also produced by the respondents to substantiate the objections so raised. Learned Sub Judge being satisfied with the objection raised dismissed the application moved by the petitioner/auction purchaser for delivery. Ext.P2 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of W.P.(C).No.36647 of 2009 - O 2 Ext.P2 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. So far as the settlement of dispute as to the question whether the land is ecologically fragile land or not, falls within the domain of the Tribunal constituted under the KF(VMEFL) Act. When an objection is raised producing a notification that the property covered by the sale is a ecologically fragile land falling under the provisions of the aforesaid Act before the execution court it cannot proceed with the execution. It cannot adjudicate or determine the question whether the property is ecologically fragile land or not. So much so, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in Ext.P2 order passed by the learned Sub Judge. Petitioner/auction purchaser has to work out his remedies before the appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings, as provided by law. Writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-