IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1466 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.33748/2009 Dated 01/03/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- V.KOMALAVALLY NETHIAR, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.GOPALAN NAIR, KAMMUNDA HOUSE, VALAD, THALAPUZHA, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILD LIFE (E) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MANANTHAVADI, WAYANAD. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1466 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The unsuccessful petitioner is the appellant before this Court. The grievance is with regard to the rejection of the claim for declaration of her rights over the properties taken over by the Government under the relevant provisions of Kerala Private Forest Vesting and Assignment Act, 1971 by virtue of Ext.P2 notification, which was issued in the year 1977. 2. The case of the writ petitioner before this Court was that she was having partible rights in the property covered by Ext.P1 and the title was referred to as flowing from Ext.P1(a), document bearing No.258/1910; whereby the petitioner's predecessor in title obtained the rights. According to the appellant, Ext.P2 notification was issued by the Government for acquisition of the property as vested forest, which affected the rights of the petitioner, who in turn approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.7436 of 2007; whereby the case projected by the writ petitioner in Ext.P1 representation therein dated 27.07.2004 was directed to be considered and finalised as W.A. No. 1466 of 2010 -:2:- specified in the judgment rendered therein. 3. Pursuant to the said verdict, the matter was considered by the Government leading to Ext.P3 order dated 13.11.2011; whereby the claim was rejected, which formed the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition (W.P.(C) No.33748 of 2009). The facts and figures as projected in the writ petition were meticulously analysed by the learned Single Judge, who observed that, the challenge raised by the writ petitioner was highly belated by an extent of nearly 32 years. 4. The case of the writ petitioner was that when Ext.P2 notification was issued in the year 1977, she was only a 'minor' and that she could fight for the cause by approaching this Court only much later, thus seeking to explain the delay. The interference declined by the learned Single Judge is sought to be challenged in the said circumstances. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant being a minor at the relevant time, the matter ought to have been dealt with much leniency. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is now 42 years, going by the contents of the affidavit dated 23.11.2009 filed in support W.A. No. 1466 of 2010 -:3:- of the writ petition. This shows that, at the time of issuing Ext.P2 notification in the year 1977 she was aged about 8 years and she became a major in the year 1987. Absolutely no explanation is forthcoming for not challenging the notification, if at all the appellant was aggrieved in any manner, within a reasonable time, at any rate within three years after attaining the majority. The petitioner chose to wake up from the deep slumber only in the year 2007, when she approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.7436 of 2007, for the first time for causing a representation to be considered and acted upon. It has been made clear by the Apex Court on many an occasion that filing of a representation or repeated representation cannot stretch the cause of action, as per the decision reported in S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1990 SC 10]. This being the position, the alleged cause of action sought to be projected by the appellant in W.P.(C) No.33748 of 2009 is obviously stale which does not require to be acted upon, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge. 6. Coming to the merits also, the learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioner could not have W.A. No. 1466 of 2010 -:4:- approached the custodian of the vested forest under the Kerala Private Forests (Exemption from Vesting) Rules, 1974 for the benefit of Rule 3 for the obvious reason that such an application, if at all any, was to be preferred within the specified date which expired decades back. Similarly, the right of the aggrieved party, if at all any, to approach the Tribunal under Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forests(Tribunal) Rules, 1972 also expired decades ago. As such, there is no merit as well to be looked into by this Court. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds that, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb