IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32942 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- AMBALA PARAMBIL KUNHAYIN, S/O. AHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI, AMBALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. 4. THE DIVISION FOREST OFFICER, KALPETTA, WAYANAND DISTRICT. 5. THE RANGE OFFICER, MEPPADI FOREST OFFICE, MEPPADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLARIMALA VILLAGE OFFICE, VELLARIMALA, WAYANAD. R1 TO 6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.P.M.POULOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/11/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 12557 OF 2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK WP(C).No. 32942 of 2009(K) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX -------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------ EXT.P1. COPY OF THE SALE DEED DT. 26.2.1984 EXT.P2. COPY of the O.A. NO.1624/1976 DT. 13.11.1996. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT. 28.2.77 EXT.P4.COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT. 28.2.77 EXT.P5. COPY OF THE EXTRAT OF B REGISTER EXT.P6. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.50/93 DT. 15.3.1993 OF VILLAGE OFFICE, VELLARIMALA EXT.P7. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.AD/05-06/37/BT DT. 3.1.06 OF 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.8. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 17.2.06. EXT.P9. COPY of the REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DT. 27.6.06. EXT.P10. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.B6/13762/93 DT. 4.5.20-01 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P11. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 01.08.09. EXT.P12. COPY OF THE FIELD MAP OF RE-SURVEY 124/19 OF VELLARIMALA VILLAGE. EXT.P13. COPY OF THE FIELD REGISTER ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF CENTRAL SURVEY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P14. COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE MEPPADI PANCHAYATH OFFICE DT. 09.02.96 EXT.P15. COPY OF THE G.O. NO.2642/06/REV DT. 5.6.2005. EXT.P16. COPY OF THE GO (S) NO.1106/05 DT. 23.02.2005. EXT.P17. COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM VELLARIMALA VILLAGE OFFICE DT. 16.05.2000. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS ---------------------------------------- EXT.R4(A). COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.B6-13762/93 DT.04.05.2001 / TRUE CPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 32942 OF 2009 & 12557 OF 2010 ======================= Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that since 1965, he has been in possession of 10 acres of land in Sy.No.1171/1 (RS 124/19) of Vellarimala Village in Vythiri Taluk, Wynad District. According to the petitioner, he had also obtained purchase certificate issued under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in respect of the property in question, and that the land was developed by him as a coffee plantation after obtaining registration from the Coffee Board. 2. It is stated that, till 2003, the revenue officials have accepted tax in respect of the property. But however, in 2003, that was declined to be accepted alleging that as per notification dated 4/5/2001 issued under Rule 2A of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, the property has been notified as a private forest vested in the State. His representations were of no avail and in those circumstances, WP(C) No.32942/09 was filed. WPC Nos.32942/09 & 12557/10 :2 : 3. After the writ petition was entertained by this Court and the respondents filed counter affidavit, relying on the notification, petitioner filed WP(C) No.12557/10 producing the notification as Ext.P28 and challenging the same in so far as the property is notified. 4. Admittedly, in view of the aforesaid notification, the property is a private forest vested under the Act and such vesting, has taken effect w.e.f. 10/5/1971 by virtue of the provisions contained in the Act. So long as that notification remains valid and the status of the property continues as vested forest, the revenue officials cannot be faulted for not having accepted tax from the petitioner. Therefore, the relief sought for in WP(C) No. 32942/09 to direct the revenue officials to accept tax in respect of the property cannot be granted. 5. Coming to the prayer in WP(C)No.12557/10 is concerned, as already noticed, the challenge in the writ petition is mainly against Ext.P28, the notification issued under the Vesting and Assignment Act and the Rules. The main ground on which the notification is challenged is that though the Act came into force in WPC Nos.32942/09 & 12557/10 :3 : 1971 and the notifications were to be issued immediately thereafter, the notification was issued only in 2001, which is after an inordinate delay. According to the petitioner, the delay itself should invalidate the notification. 6. However, challenging a similar notification, an original petition was filed before this Court as OP No.8163/2002. This Court by judgment dated 8/9/2010 dismissed the original petition upholding the notification and rejecting the contention that delay will invalidate the notification. Therefore, the notification cannot be invalidated on the ground pleaded in the petition. 7. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner also contended that having regard to the long lapse of time and as the period specified for filing application before the Tribunal constituted under the Provisions of the Vesting Act has expired, the petitioner is left without any remedy against the notification. 8. As already seen, this Court has entertained WP(C) No.12557/10 filed challenging the notification and the writ petition has been pending in court till now. That apart, notification has disastrous effect of depriving the petitioner of 10 acres of property, which according to him is his only asset, and therefore, I WPC Nos.32942/09 & 12557/10 :4 : am not persuaded to think that the petitioner would have by deliberate default not applied to the Tribunal, had he been appraised of the notification in time. Therefore, I am inclined to think that irrespective of the delay and as no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the respondents, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to get his rights adjudicated before the Tribunal constituted under the Vesting Act. 9. In that view of the matter, I direct that if the petitioner files an application as contemplated under the Vesting Act before the appropriate Tribunal within one month from today, irrespective of the delay that has occurred, the Tribunal shall entertain the application, consider the same in accordance with law and pass orders in the matter. In the light of the above, WP(C) No.32942/09 will stand dismissed and WP(C) No.12557/10 will stand disposed of with the above directions. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp