IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 30577 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ANIL JACOB, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.JACOB, UPPAZHAKKAT HOUSE, ENKAKKAD, VADAKKANCHERY. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, VADAKKANCHERY. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, ATTUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, ENKAKKAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR. 5. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, THRISSUR. 6. JOHN, S/O.CHERIA, KOTTEKKUDIYIL HOUSE, KARUMATHRA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DITRICT. 7. JACOB, UPPAZHAKKAT HOUSE, P.O.ENKAKKAD, CHEPPILAKKAD DESOM, VADAKKANCHERY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.30577 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner herein has approached this court, in this writ petition, seeking for quashing Ext.P9 and for a further direction not to permit 6th or 7th respondent to remove the teak trees from the property situated in Re.Sy.No.60/5 of Attur village. He is a resident of Karumathra Village in Thrissur District. The 6th respondent had purchased an extent 1 acre 50 and ¾ cents of land in Sy.120/6 of Enkakkad Village from the petitioner’s father- the 7th respondent, as per Ext.P1. The adjacent property belongs to the petitioner’s sister. According to the petitioner the property, 1 acre 50 ¾ cents of land in Sy.No.120/6 is situated in Enakkad Village. The said property is the boundary of Enakkad Village and thereafter Attoor Village starts. There is a Government land having a total extent of 0.0270 Hectare in re- survey No.60/5 of Attoor Village. This land is situated just adjacent to the 6th respondent's land. In the said forest land ten teak trees worth more than 10 lakh rupees were there. It is the case of the petitioner that the 6th respondent is trespassing into W.P.(C)No.30577 of 2009 2 the said land and cutting down the teak trees. He had filed a complaint before the Forest Flying Squad, who came to the property and conducted an inspection. It is the further case of the petitioner that he had filed another representation, Ext.P3, before the Minister for Revenue, seeking for appropriate action and he had been moving the District Collector also in the matter. By Ext.P8 is the representation filed by the petitioner before the Divisional Forest Officer. By Ext.P9 he was given reply to the Ext.P8 stating that teak trees have been cut from the private property in Sy.60/5 and the said property is not a reserve forest. 2. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, a statement has been filed by the 5th respondent. The statement reveals following facts: To verify the veracity of the allegations the 5th respondent had requested the Forest Mini Survey Wing, Kozhikode to measure the property and fix the boundaries of the disputed property and the nereby reserve forest, which is lying in Sy.No.123 in the same village. The Forest Mini Survey Wing after measuring the property and fixing the boundaries informed the 5th respondent by letter dated 17/7/2007 stating that the W.P.(C)No.30577 of 2009 3 disputed property lying in Sy.No.60/2005 is a private property and the reserve forest lying in Sy.No.123 is not adjacent to the above said private property. Ext.R5(a) is the copy of the said letter. This finding was informed to the petitioner as per Ext.P9 letter. It is also pointed out that in view of the finding of the Forest Mini Survey, that the disputed property has no connection with the reserve forest, the 5th respondent cannot take any action under the Kerala Forest Act against the 6th and 7th respondents. In paragraph 4, it is also pointed out that the 7th respondent is the father of the petitioner and there is a property dispute between the petitioner and the 7th respondent. The 6th respondent is the cousin of the petitioner and the 7th respondent has transferred some immovable property in favour of the 6th respondent. It is further stated that this writ petition is filed by the petitioner only due to the personal rivalry between the petitioner and the 6th and 7th respondents. 3. It is evident from Exts.P9 and R5(a) that in the light of the complaint filed by the petitioner, the Forest Survey Wing had measured the property and found out that the disputed property W.P.(C)No.30577 of 2009 4 is not a forest land. In the light of the above conclusion arrived at by them, the contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. If the petitioner has got any complaint with regard to the Survey conducted, he will have to approach the competent authority in the matter. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj