IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 58 of 2010 ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20326/2009 Dated 26/08/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------- 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 SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.P.M. PAULOSE. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------ K. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.LATE K.S. NAMBOOTHIRIPAD, KOZHISSERY MANA, SHORNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P. VIJAYA BHANU, SMT. M.M. DEEPA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.58 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. This writ appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.20326 of 2009 directing the writ petitioner and the State to work out their remedies before the appropriate Forest Tribunal. 2. The case of the writ petitioner was that he is the owner of 3.85 acres of land in Sy.No.1/1 and 1/5 of Shornur-I Village in Chiramannoor Desom, Ottappalam Taluk, deriving title from his father and since then his right and title has been recognised by accepting the tax. It is submitted that recently as the Forest officials without any cause has started interfering with his possession on untenable grounds, he was forced to W.A. No.58 of 2010 2 approach this Court. 3. After issuance of notice by this Court, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents-State before the learned Single Judge, contended that in the year 1977, notification under Rule 2A of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1974 has been issued showing the land in question as also covered by the notification indicating it as part of the forest land. However, it was admitted that either by inadvertence or oversight, though the description of the land has been mentioned, the survey number is not given. 4. At the time when the matter was being considered by the learned Single Judge, it was an undisputed fact that no erratum notification has been issued by then. Considering this aspect, the learned Single Judge deemed it proper to direct the W.A. No.58 of 2010 3 writ petitioner and the respondents to work out their remedies before the Forest Tribunal which has clothed with jurisdiction to decide such issues. As against the said direction of the learned Single Judge , the present writ appeal is filed by the State. 5. Though a contention is taken in paragraph 3 of the memorandum of writ appeal that the State has now issued an erratum notification on 25.11.2009, no such notification has been produced and only an undated and unnumbered draft erratum notification is produced as Annexure R2(a). In the absence of production of the erratum notification and in view of the undisputed fact that the survey umber of the land of the writ petitioner was not included in the earlier notification, in our view, the learned Single Judge was justified in directing the writ petitioner to approach the Forest Tribunal. We also find that proper discussion has been made by the learned Single Judge W.A. No.58 of 2010 4 even so far as the limitation is concerned. We see no error or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence finding the writ appeal as devoid of merits, we dismiss the same. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge vns