IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 RP.No. 640 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.58/2010 Dated 14/01/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, PALAKKAD. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM. BY GOVT PLEADER SRI.P.M.POULOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ K.SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.LATE K.S.NAMBOOTHIRIPAD, KOZHISSERY MANA, SHORNUR. ADV. SMT.M.M.DEEPA SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.640 OF 2010 IN W.A.No.58 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2010 O R D E R Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.This review petition comes up with an application for condoning delay in filing this petition. We thought it fit to look into the merits of the matter. We have heard learned Government Pleader for the Forest Department as also learned counsel for the respondent who is the writ petitioner. 2.The application for condoning delay in filing the review is allowed. 3.The respondent writ petitioner claims that he is the owner of an extent of 3.85 Acres in Shornur 1 village. He claims derivative possession from his father. He claims that he has paid basic tax for that property in the name of his father RP.640/10 2 which was accepted by the revenue department. He has certain tax receipts with him. He alleges that in the recent past, the Forest officials made an attempt to interfere with his possession. He, therefore, filed the writ petition. Essentially, the issue that would arise for adjudication is as to the identity of the property in question, including whether it is part of a land which is forest land or whether it is land belonging to the writ petitioner. The question would also be as to whether the petitioner is entitled to have that land exempted from the purview of the Act. These are issues which would fundamentally require identification and adjudication as to the alleged title to the land, including as to whether it is part of the forest. Learned single Judge, therefore, rightly relegated the writ petitioner to the Forest Tribunal. 4.Though the Government filed a writ appeal, the fundamental challenge therein was against the direction of the learned single Judge to treat the writ petitioner's application, if any, as within time, provided it is filed within a period of four weeks RP.640/10 3 before the Forest Tribunal. By judgment dated 14.1.2010, the writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench holding that there is proper discussion by the learned single Judge even as far as the question of limitation is concerned and we see no error or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned single Judge. 5.In this review, the issue projected by the State is that the land in question was notified long ago and the whole confusion was on account of some superficial error in the notification which has since been ratified by an erratum notification. Learned Special Government Pleader for Forest Department argued that such erratum is only a curative mechanism and that could not be the foundation for adjudicating the issue afresh under the guise of the direction of the learned single Judge. 6.The coverage of a particular piece of land in a particular notification in relation to a particular piece of law is a matter for which there has to be certainty. The citizen has to know RP.640/10 4 the assertion of the State against him as relatable to any particular legislation. Therefore, we are not prepared to accept the submission on behalf of the State on its total face value as of now. The question as to whether the property was in fact covered by the first notification to the explicit or imputable knowledge of the writ petitioner or whether the erratum notification amounts to notice to the petitioner of such coverage, are matters which may have to be deliberated upon by the Tribunal. The question whether any original application by the writ petitioner would be barred by limitation is also to be decided. We are also told that as the law now stands, the Tribunal may not have the jurisdiction to condone any delay, which issue is itself pending consideration before the Division Bench. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that pursuant to the direction of this Court, her client has filed an original application before the Forest Tribunal and that the same is pending. RP.640/10 5 In the aforesaid situation, we direct that the Forest Tribunal would consider the directions contained in the decision of the learned single Judge as also of the Division Bench regarding the limitation as expression of a view, but not finally determining the issue. We, therefore, clarify that it will be open to the Tribunal to consider whether the original application filed by the writ petitioner is barred by law, after considering all due facts, factors and circumstances and by applying the law on the point. The review petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, Judge. kkb.23/09.