IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1757 of 2007() ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3340/2004 Dated 19/01/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP(C): ------------------------------------------ 1. THE CONSERVATOR & CUSTODIAN OF FOREST, OLAVAKODE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NORTH WYNAD DIVISION, MANANTHAWADY. 3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WYNAD. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, MANANTHAWADI, WYNAD DISTRICT. BY SPL.GOVT. PLEADER FOREST SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN WP(C) : ------------------------------------------- 1. M.J. THOMAS, TANGE ESTATE, MANANTHODDY, NORTH WYNAD. 2. SOBHA JOHN KOSHY, MUTHESA ESTATE, KARTHIKULAM P.O., MANANTHODDY, NORTH WYNAD. 3. ZACHARIA JOHN, JAY ESTATE, KARTHIKULAM -DO-. 4. MRS.LENY SUSAN MATHEW, KILIMANJARO ESTATE, AYROOR VILLA,MANANTHODDY P.O. WA.No. 1757 of 2007 5. M.J. GEORGE, P.M.G. ESTATGE, KARTHIKULAM P.O., MANANTHODDY. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) - R5 SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) - R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ===================== W.A.No.1757 of 2007 ===================== Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy,J. The Government took over land from the writ petitioners contending that the above land is vested forest under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971). They approached the Forest Tribunal for a declaration that it is not vested forest land and it is the exempted land. Finally it was found that the land in question owned by them is not private forest by order of the Forest Tribunal dated 10.2.1998. The above order became final and the land was not restored. After several representations and litigations, part of the land was given and the lands covered in O.S.Nos.67 and 68 of 1975 were not restored. Finally, they filed Writ Petition for restoration of the land. 2. The contention of the Government in the counter affidavit is that the land was restored. An additional counter affidavit was filed stating that there was encroachers by tribals in the land and it cannot be restored. In this connection we also refer to Ext.P5 wherein the Divisional Forest Officer informed that the land in question covered by the above O.As. was trespassed by the tribal families. Even though cases have been charged against WA 1757/07 -: 2 :- them, due to political support, they cannot be evicted and also suggested that instead of the land in question, the adjacent land can be given to the petitioners as was done in certain other cases. By Ext.P7(a), the Divisional Forest Officer informed the Conservator of Forest that the petitioners are prepared to accept the compensation for the land as it is not possible for the Government to give alternate extent of land. The value of the land was assessed by the Tahsildar as Rs.1,000/- per cent in respect of the land covered by O.A.No.67 of 1975 and Rs.800/- per cent in respect of the land covered by O.A.No.68 of 1975. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the land in question is liable to be notified under the Kerala Forests (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003. There was no notification declaring that the land is under the Kerala Forests (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act. In these circumstances, the learned single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition granting compensation for the land directed to be restored to them as per Ext.P1. 3. After the judgment of the learned single Judge, it was notified under the Ecologically Fragile Lands Act. The land in question will not come under the Ecologically Fragile Lands Act as even according to the Government, the land in question is not restored and it is occupied by the Tribals and it was cultivated with cardamom and pepper. If the land was restored immediately on receipt of the order of the Forest Tribunal, the encroachment would not have taken place. Under Section 8 of WA 1757/07 -: 3 :- the Act, the custodian has got statutory duty to restore possession of such land on the basis of the order. That was not done. However, that statutory duty is violated. We are of the opinion that absolutely no grounds are made out by the appellants to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. We fully agree with the view of the learned single Judge. The Writ Appeal is dismissed. J.B.Koshy, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 7/6