IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37660 of 2008(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.VAS PHARMACEUTICALS (INDIA)LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VASUDEVAN K .PANDALATH, 'PANDALATH BUNGALOW' THYKOODAM, VYTTILA COCHIN -19. BY ADVS. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE, SMT.G.VIDYA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, OLAVAKODE, PALAKKAD DIST. R1 & R2 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FOREST) SRI. M.P. PRAKASH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.37660/2008-G: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN M.F.A. NO. 75/04 & CONNECTED CASES DT. 05/10/06. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED TO THE R.2. DT. 13/11/07. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE R.2. DT. 19/11/07. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. DT. 14/08/08. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY `EMOOR BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM' IN FAVOUR OF G.P. NAIR FAMILY TRUST DTD. 12/08/1962. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD DT. 31/12/1962. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LEASE DEED EXECUTED BY `EMOOR BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM' IN FAVOUR OF G.P. NAIR FAMILY TRUST DT. 29/01/1963. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT IN O.S. NO.209/65 DTD. 23/11/1966. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF SUB COURT, PALAKKAD IN O.S. NO. 209/65 DT. 19/12/1968. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE RUBBER BOARD DTD. 17/05/1965. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN FROM THE FACT DTD. 01/08/1966. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY 1ST DEFENDANT IN O.S. NO. 117/1993 BEFORE SUB COURT, PALAKKAD DTD 20/11/1993. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR BUILDING TAX ISSUED BY MALAMPUZHA PANCHAYATH DTD. 28/06/1990. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PLANTATION TAX ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, MALAMPUZHA DT. 10/02/88. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OP. RUBBER MARKETING SOCIETY DT. 15/07/88. EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY LABOUR OFFICER, PALAKKAD DTD. 20/04/88. EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED IN FAVOUR OF VAS PHARMACEUTICALS (INDIA) LTD. DT. 02/01/93. EXT.P.18: COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED IN FAVOUR OF VAS PHARMACEUTICALS (INDIA) LTD., DT. 09/01/93. W.P.(C). NO.37660/2008-G: EXT.P.19: COPY OF THE FORM NO.2 SUBMITTED BY VAS PHARMACEUTICALS (INDIA) LTD. BEFORE THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES DT. 18/07/1996. EXT.P.20: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OP. RUBBER MARKETING SOCIETY DT. 06/10/98. EXT.P.21: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OP RUBBER MARKETING SOCIETY DT. 22/10/98. EXT.P.22: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OP RUBBER MARKETING SOCIETY DT. 30/10/98. EXT.P.23: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OP RUBBER MARKETING SOCIETY DT. 12/01/06. EXT.P.24: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OP RUBBER MARKETING SOCIETY DT. 29/12/08. EXT.P.25: COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT IN O.S. NO. 831/99 DTD. 17/03/1999. EXT.P.26: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DTD. 30/03/1999. EXT.P.27: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DTD. 16/12/1999. EXT.P.28: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DTD. 16/12/1999. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.10/07/2006 IN I.A. NO. 1289/2006 IN MFA NO. 75/2004. EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 01/09/2006 IN O.S. 2/2006. EXT.R2.C: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 27/09/1999 IN O.P. NO. 1117/1998. EXT.R2.D: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).689/66/RD DTD. 19/12/66. EXT.R2.E: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. D-1383/77 DTD. 12/08/87. EXT.R2.F: COPIES OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. B4-766/87 DTD. 30/11/92 AND NOTIFICATIONS NO. B4-3573/01 DTD. 08/05/01. EXT.R2.G: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).48/93/FORESTS DTD. 18/06/93. EXT.R2.H: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 11/10/2006 OF THE KFDC. W.P.(C). NO.37660/2008-G: EXT.R2.I: COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DTD. 06/04/2000 IN MFA 836/99, 1090/96 & 541/97 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.R2.J: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DTD. 19/04/2003 OF THE FOREST TRIBUNAL. EXT.R2.K: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ASST. INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER. EXT.R2.L: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. C4-21437/00 DTD. 26/08/00 OF RPINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (GAZETTE NO. 37 DTD. 19/09/00, ITEM NO. 18). EXT.R2.M: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). NO.6905/2007. EXT.R2.N: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER DTD. 09/04/2007 IN CON. CASE.NO.536/2007. EXT.R2.O: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29/05/2007 IN CON. APPEAL NO.6/2007 BY DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 37660 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a company who claims to be the owner of “G.P. Nair Plantation”. According to them by virtue of Ext.P1 judgment of a Division Bench of this court they are entitled to be in possession of 67.56 hectares of land involved in Ext.P1 judgment. But the respondents are interfering with their right to tap rubber trees in the plantation. Therefore they seek the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents not to obstruct or prevent the rubber tapping by the petitioner in Zone 1 of “G.P. Nair Plantation”, which comes within the jurisdiction of 2nd respondent. (ii) Issue a declaration that the respondents have no right to prevent/obstruct rubber tapping over Zone 1 of the plantation , in the light of Ext.P1 judgment.” 2. The learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) points out that Ext.P1 judgment is not in favour of the petitioner and therefore no right accrues to them on the basis of Ext.P1 judgment. According to him Ext.P1 W.P.(C)No. 37660 of 2008 -2- judgment is a common judgment in MFA Nos.75/2004, 604, 610 & 672/2003, 1/2004, 113/2004 & O.P. No.27317/2001. Out of the same O.P. No.27317/2001 alone was filed by the petitioner in this writ petition. That Original Petition was dismissed. The reliefs granted by Ext.P1 judgment was only in the other cases namely MFA Nos. 113/2004, 604/2003, 610/2003 and 672/2003 in none of which the petitioner was a party. Therefore Ext.P1 does not enure to the benefit of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner cannot stake any claim on the basis of Ext.P1 judgment is the submission of the learned Government Pleader. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader Ext.P1 judgment has been rendered in a batch of cases namely MFA Nos.75/2004, 604, 610, 672/2003, 1/2004, 113/2004 & O.P. No.27317/2001. In that judgment ultimately this court has held as follows: “32. In the result, the above cases are disposed of as follows: M.F.A No.75 of 2004 filed by the State against O.A. No.16/93 is dismissed O.P. No.27317/2001 is dismissed W.P.(C)No. 37660 of 2008 -3- with the observation that the right of the parties inter se will be subject to the decision of the civil court M.F.A. No.1/2004 , M.F.A. No.113/2004, M.F.A. No.604/2003, M.F.A. No.610/2003 and M.F.A. No.672/2003 are disposed of holding that 67.56 hectares of land described as Zone 1 in Ext.A211 by the Inspecting Asst. Commissioner, Agricultural Income Tax is not a private forest on 10.5.1971 or in other words, Government cannot claim any right over the said property. So far as the title, entitlement, possession, etc. with respect to this property, the parties will be governed by the decision of the civil court as litigations are pending between them before various courts with respect to the same. It is also made clear that with respect to 57.56 hectres, the parties are to be governed by the decision of the civil court.” 5. From the same it is abundantly clear that O.P. No.27317/2001 filed by the petitioner was actually dismissed. The finding relied upon by the petitioner namely, the finding that 67.56 hectares of land described as Zone No.I in Ext.A 211 is not a private forest and the Government cannot claim any right over the said property, is in favour of the parties in MFA Nos. 1/2004, 113/2004, 604/2003, 610/2003 and 672/2003 in none of which the petitioner was a party. Therefore the petitioner cannot rely on Ext.P1 judgment to prove any right whatsoever in respect of the property alleged to be in the possession of the petitioner. Further the learned Government Pleader W.P.(C)No. 37660 of 2008 -4- points out that after Ext.P1 judgment, the land, which has been held to be not private forest, has to be restored to the original applicant before the Forest Tribunal. Petitioner was not an applicant before the Forest Tribunal at any time. Therefore, the question of restoring the 67.56 hectares of land to the petitioner does not arise at all. That being so, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/