IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 W.A.No. 2002 of 2008 ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.2.2008 IN W.P.(C) NO.10465 OF 2007 APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- MUHAMMED ISMAIL, S/O.SIKHANDER RAWTHER, M.G.P.11/99, KARIMUTTY KARA, MARAYOOR VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SANDAL WOOD DIVISION, MARAYOOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MARAYOOR FOREST RANGE, MARAYOOR, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.2002 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 24th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.10465 of 2007 dated 28th February, 2008. (2) The appellant along with four others were prosecuted at the instance of the Forest Department for the offences punishable under the provisions contained in the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986. It appears that the Department had seized 750 pieces of sandal wood and one sack of saw dust on July 7, 2001. O.R.No.22 of 2001 was registered by the Marayoor Forest Range Officer in connection with the above incident. During the pendency of the case before the criminal court the contraband articles were sold and the sale proceeds were deposited in court subject to the result of the criminal case. (3) It is on record that the appellant and the other four accused were tried and acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devikulam in C.C.No.642 of 2003. It is thereafter that the appellant had filed the writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents to release 70% of the sale proceeds of the sandal wood with 12% interest thereon, which were allegedly cut from the property belonging to the appellant. W.A.No.2002 of 2008 2 His claim was based on Exts.P9 and P10 orders of the Government which stipulated that the Government would be entitled to cut and sell sandal wood trees standing in private lands and to appropriate 30% of the sale proceeds and pay the balance 70% to the land owner, if he agrees for such an option. (4) The respondents contested the claim made by the appellant contending, inter alia, that the appellant had no manner of right in the property which exclusively belonged to the Government. (5) The learned Single Judge after considering the entire materials available on record took the view that there was force in the above contention. It was noticed by the learned Judge that the title deeds relating to the property were not produced by the appellant before him. The learned Judge had also placed reliance on Exts.R2(b) and R2(c) letters issued by the Village Officer, Marayoor, in this regard, informing that going by the Village records, appellant's claim was not sustainable. Though the appellant had later produced the title deed which was stated to be in respect of the said property along with the Review Petition, the learned Judge still noticed that there was some discrepancy in the description of the property and the survey number mentioned therein. It W.A.No.2002 of 2008 3 was in the above circumstances that the learned Judge took the view that the claim made by the appellant could be resolved only by a civil court. (6) The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended before us that from the materials produced by the appellant it could be seen that there is no dispute with regard to a certain portion of the property at least, if not in respect of the entire extent. We are afraid, the said contention cannot be countenanced for the reason that this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot decide disputed questions of fact. It is discernible from the records available before us that the Department had specifically contended that the appellant had no title over the property from which the sandal wood trees were allegedly cut. Therefore, the appellant has to necessarily establish his title over the property through a civil court if his claim is to be sustained. Moreover, appellant had filed an application for identical reliefs before the Criminal Court after disposal of the case against him and the other accused. The learned Magistrate had, through Ext.P8 order, dismissed the said application. Appellant had never challenged the above order before any superior forum. W.A.No.2002 of 2008 4 (7) In any view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns