IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 9131 of 2004(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------ 1. T.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.THOOGAN, AGED 41 YEARS, FACTORY DIVISION, SILENT VALLEY MUNNAR.P.O. 2. POOMANI VAIGUNDAN, W/O.VAIGUNDAN, AGED 50 YEARS, NO.1 DIVISION, SILENT VALLEY ESTATE, MUNNAR.P.O. 3. ARUL SELVI JAYAPAL, W/O.JAYAPAL, NO.I DIVISION, SILENT VALLEY ESTATE, MUNNAR.P.O. 4. MUTHAMMAL SELVI MOHANAN, W/O.MOHANAN, NO.I DIVISION, SILENT VALLEY ESTATE, MUNNAR P.O. 5. KARUPPAYEE, D/O.PUTHIYAVAN, SILENT VALLEY, MUNNAR.P.O. 6. KARUPPASWAMY, S/O.PUTHIYAVAN, SILENT VALLEY, MUNNAR.P.O. 7. MARIYAMMAL, W/O.BOSE SILENT VALLEY ESTATE, MUNNAR.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.VARGHESE SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, TO BE REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE (R) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM TALUK,DEVIKULAM IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU - R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.9131/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE TALUK SURVEYOR DEVIKULAM DT. 10.12.2003. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF G.O.(MS) NO.379/80/RD DT. 18.4.1980. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE F.I.R. NO.61/2003 OF DEVIKULAM POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.61/2003 DT. 26.8.2003. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC. NO.34075/2003 DT. 30.10.03. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R4(a):- COPY OF THE RELEVANT ANNEXURE PERTAINING TO THE ARE IN QUESTION APPENDED TO THE ACT. EXT.R4(b):- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE ACT. EXT.R4(c):- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE NOTIFICATION BY WHICH SY. NO.8/1 ALONG WITH OTHERS HAS BEEN SHOWN AS VESTED. EXT.R4(d):- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.GO(MS) 379/80/RD DT. 18.4.1980. EXT.R4(e):- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE EXPERT COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT. EXT.R4(f):- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC. 16393/2004. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.9131 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners are persons in occupation of certain lands, which were resumed by the Government under the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Land) Act, 1971. They are challenging Ext.P2 Government Order, whereby certain lands out of the lands taken over by the Government under the Act has been ordered to be handed over to the Forest Authorities, which includes the land which is in occupation of the petitioners. Their contention is that Ext.P2 cannot be invoked to dispossess the petitioners from the land in so far as the Act does not permit the Government to handover the land to the Forest Department. Their case is that, as is clear from the Preamble of the Act as also the provisions therein, the resumption of the land is for the object of distribution of those lands for cultivation and purposes and ancillary thereto. Further, they would contend that as per Section 9, the Government can reserve such extent of lands as W.P.(c)no.9131/04 2 may be necessary for purposes directed towards the promotion of agriculture or welfare of agricultural population to be settled on such lands and the remaining lands are to be assigned on registry to agriculturists and agricultural labourers in such manner as my be prescribed. The petitioners also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kannan Devan Hills Products Company Ltd V. State of Kerala [1972 KLT 377] which according to them indicate that the land resumed under the Act can be used only for agricultural purposes. In that decision upholding the constitutional validity of the Act, it has been held that the purpose for which the Act has been enacted is based on the concept of agrarian reforms and if the state were to use lands for purposes which have not direct connection with the promotion of agricultural or welfare of agricultural population, the State could be restrained from using the lands for those purposes. They therefore, submit that Ext.P2, whereby the Government has directed handing over of part of the lands so resumed by the Forest Authorities is clearly against the provisions of the Act and therefore, Ext.P2 is vitiated. The petitioners, on the basis of the above contentions, seek the following reliefs: W.P.(c)no.9131/04 3 “(1) call for the records from the respondents leading to Exhibit-P2 government order and issue a writ of certiorari to quash the same; (ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess/evict the petitioners from their agricultural land comprised in survey No.8/1 of Kannan Devan Hills village and covered by Ext.P2 report; (iii) issue a writ declaring that the land resumed by the Government under Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Land) Act 1971, cannot be transferred to any department of the Govt. including the Forest Department, in view of the preamble and the provision under Section 9 of the said Act as well as the opinion of the Honourable Supreme Court of India expressed in the judgment, operated in 1972 KLT 377(SC).” 2. The learned Government Pleader would contend that since as per Section 9 , the Government can set apart, part of the properties resumed for the purpose of promotion of agriculture and welfare of agricultural population, they can certainly handover the land so set apart for afforestation which only has been done by Ext.P2. He would also contend that forestry is also an agricultural operation and therefore there is nothing wrong in handing over the property to the Forest Department. W.P.(c)no.9131/04 4 I am not inclined to go into this legal question now in so far as the petitioners may not be aggrieved provided the land occupied by them being a comparatively small extent and the petitioners have been in occupation of the land, the same is directed not to be handed over to the Forest Department. Therefore, while not interfering with Ext.P2 order, I direct that the extent to which the petitioners are in occupation need not be taken over as per Ext.P2. Accordingly I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to the effect that if the petitioners are to be evicted or dispossessed from the land that shall only be in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)no.9131/04 5