IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15025 of 2006(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.NARAYANAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, KATTAKALATHIL HOUSE, KIZHUR, PANAMANNA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CUSTODIAN & CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, VESTED FOREST CIRCLE, OLAVAKODE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KOLAPPULLY RANGE, PALAKKAD. G.P. SRI. M.P. PRAKASH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO. 1329/1975 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, SREEKRISHNAPURAM AS ITEM NO.1 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FOREST TRIBUNAL DATED 20.9.77 IN OA 877 OF 1975 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH OF SY. NO. 69/1 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER'S FATHER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 11.12.1978 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30.11.2002 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. T-OA-877/1975 DATED 12.4.2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE SURVEY TEAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 15025 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT W.P.C. is filed for direction to the first respondent to issue NOC for the petitioner to pay land tax for 3.83 acres of land held by him. According to the petitioner, his father filed O.A. before the Forest Tribunal, which declared petitioner's father's right in respect of 2 acres of land. According to the petitioner, balance 1.83 acres was admittedly not claimed by the Forest Department over which his father had clear title. Counsel for the petitioner produced tax receipts to show that tax in respect of 3.83 acres of land was being paid until 30.11.2002. The grievance of the petitioner is that subsequent to November, 2002, tax is not received by the revenue authorities without production of NOC from the first respondent. Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that NOC is required because after award is passed by the Forest Tribunal land has to be surveyed, boundary marked and reconveyed to the applicant in terms of the award. I do not think this claim of the respondent is tenable because award itself was passed on 20.9.1977 that is nearly 32 years back from now. Respondents have no case that enjoyment of the property by the 2 original applicant or after his death by the petitioner is not in terms of the award or whether they have encroached any other property, adjoining property being part of Forest. In other words, Forest Tribunal has only declared the position that applicant was in possession and enjoyment of property which requires no ear-marking of boundary or measurement of property. This position is obviously admitted by the respondents by their own conduct in failing to demarcate the property for 32 years after the award. Therefore I do not think there is any requirement for earmarking or conveyance of the property by the respondent to the petitioner. However, it is open to any of the respondents to verify whether petitioner is holding land in excess of 3.83 acres of land for which he was paying tax until 30.11.2002 and if any excess is held by him, appropriate action will be taken for repossession of the same. W.P. is allowed directing the Tahsildar concerned to conduct local inspection and to reconfirm that the land, namely, 3.83 acres of land, for which tax was paid by the petitioner, is in his possession and enjoyment and to receive the entire tax arrears and to continue to collect the tax for the land held by petitioner. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) kk Judge 3