IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 OP.No. 717 of 2003(I) --------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.BABU, S/O. KANDAMUTHAN, THEKKUMPURAM VEEDU, VEMBALLUR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NEMMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. FOREST RANGE OFFIER, ALATHUR RANGE, PALAKKAD DIST. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR. 4. SWAMINATHAN, S/O. RAKKANDI, THEKKUMPURAM VEEDU, MURINGAMADA, VEMBATTUR POST, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K. RAMESH THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2010,S THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 717/2003. ----------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DT. 6-12-75. EXT.P2 COPY OF DOCUMENT. EXT.P3 COPY OF SALE DEED. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF SKETCH. EXT.P5 TAX RECEIPT DT. 9-11-2001. EXT.P6 COPY OF DOCUMENT. EXT.P7 COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DT. 11-6-2002. EXT.P8 COPY OF FORM I. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 717 of 2003 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 1st day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be the owner of certain properties described in the original petition. The petitioner's grievance in this original petition is that in the guise of Ext. P8 seizure report filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alathur, by the Forest Range Officer, Alathur against the 4th respondent, alleging a forest offence, respondents 1 to 3 are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this original petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. Call for the records relating to Ext. P8. ii. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 as not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property comprised in Ext. P7 by the petitioner.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent wherein they have produced Exts. R1(a) and R1(b) which are notifications issued under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, whereby the property in question has been declared as having vested with the State under the said Act. The petitioner's contention is that Ext. R1(a) has been issued in 1977 in which the petitioner's property had not been included and it is only in 2005 Ext. R1(b) erratum notification has been issued including the petitioner's property in the same. The petitioner would submit that going by the objects of the Act itself, the action of the respondents is totally illegal and purposeless. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. For the relief sought for by the petitioner, the proper remedy O.P.. No. 717/2003 -: 2 :- of the petitioner is to file a suit for injunction, where he can produce proof of title, encroachment etc. Even otherwise, admittedly, the property is covered by a notification issued under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the same even before this Court despite the 1st respondent producing the same along with the counter affidavit. As such, as on today, the notification remains unchallenged. As long as that notification stands, the property in question is vested with the Government as a private forest in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. If the petitioner is aggrieved by that notification, it is for the petitioner to approach the Forest Tribunal, if, at this point of time, he can validly do so. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/