IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 8521 of 2007(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.K.KHADER, S/O. MAMMU, PARAKANDI HOUSE, NOOLPUZHA P.O., KALLOOR, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.JIJO PAUL SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON SRI.ABRAHAM SAMSON SMT.M.T.SHEEBA SRI.P.A.RAJESH RESPONDENTS): ------------------------ 1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SOUTH WAYANAD DIVISION, KALPETTA. 2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, W.C.S., KUPPADI-II, KUPPADI, SULTHAN BATHERY. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, SULTHAN BATHERY. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUPPADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SCL. WP(C).No. 8521 of 2007(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT ON REGISTRY DATED 21.1.1970 IN WCS 29/70 P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED VIDE REF. NO.46/06/ NOC DATED 17/11/2006 BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUPPADI. P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.10.2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.11.2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TLCS DATED 3.1.2007. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE R1: TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT ENTRIES IN THE JOINT VERIFICATION REGISTER. EXT. R3(A) : TRUE COPIES OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF JOINT VERIFICATION REGISTER PREPARED BY THE THEN DEPUTY RANGER, FOREST RANGE OFFICE, CHEDALATH AND REVENUE INSPECTOR BATHERY. EXT. R3(B) : TRUE COPY OF MAHASAR PREPARED ON 15.6.2004, REGARDING THE LOSS OF 3 TREES BY THE THEN DEPUTY RANGER, FOREST RANGE OFFICE, CHEDALATH IN HE PRESENCE OF THE THEN VILLAGE OFFICER, KUPPADI. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE SCL. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 8521 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T By Ext. P1 order, certain land has been assigned to the petitioner under the Wayanad Colonization Scheme Rules, 1969. According to the petitioner, at the time of assignment, there were 16 teak trees standing in the property. The trees were cut down under Rule 16(3) of the Wayanad Colonization Scheme Rules and sold by the respondents. The petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the trees. But the petitioner has not been paid the compensation stated to be due to the petitioner, on the ground that there were actually 19 trees and 3 trees were missing. The petitioners contention is that even assuming that there were 19 trees, only the trees mentioned in Ext.P1 are government property and since the other trees are not government property, the petitioner cannot be denied W.P.(C) No. 8521 OF 2007 2 compensation on the ground that the three trees are missing. Petitioner has not been paid the compensation due to him under the rules. Petitioner particularly contends that petitioner has not been served with any order in respect of the missing trees. Had the petitioner been served with orders in respect of the missing trees, the petitioner could have challenged the same in appeal. Respondents 3 and 4 contend that there were actually 19 teak trees as evident from R3(a) joint inspection report. Petitioner is bound to account for all the 19 trees which had not been done and that is why the compensation payable in respect of the 16 trees have not been paid. According to him, since the petitioner is liable to account for the 3 trees as well, the petitioner can be paid compensation only after deducting the value of the missing trees. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Counsel for the petitioner would contend that had the petitioner been served with orders on the missing trees, the petitioner could have challenged W.P.(C) No. 8521 OF 2007 3 the same in appeal. 2. In view of the said submission, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the competent officer under the Rules to pass a speaking order on the question and serving it on the petitioner as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of this judgment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Certified copy of this judgment shall be served on the first respondent who shall see that the competent officer passes appropriate orders as directed above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. SCL.