IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 16970 of 2009(M) OA.492/1975 of FOREST TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD PETITIONER: K.M. RAMANI, D/O. LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, THEKKETHARA (JAYALAKSHMI NIVAS) AYLUR.P.O, NENMARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR SMT.SANDHYA RADHAKRISHNAN SMT.M.SRUTHY RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. 4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NENMARA, PALAKKAD. 5. THE RANGE OFFICER, ALATHUR RANGE, PALAKKAD. BY SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN,ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL-R1 TO R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C.NO.16970 OF 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of the possession certificate in respect of the property of the petitioner dated 22.11.2008. Ext.P2: True copy of the location certificate of the property of the petitioner dated nil. Ext.P3: True copy of the order in O.A.No.492/1975 on the file of the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad dated 18.3.1978. Ext.P4: True copy of the communication issued by the fourth respondent to the petitioner dated 21.1.2009. Ext.P5: True copy of the representation submitted by the petitioner before the second respondent without the documents enclosed along with the same dated 29.5.2009. RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS: NIL K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 16970 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the owner of the property covered by Ext.P3 order of the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad dated 18.3.1978. According to her, so far, no notification has been issued by the respondents by which the said property can be said to be covered under the provisions of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Without such a notification, the respondents claim that the land is already vested in them under Section 3 of Act and are interfering with the agricultural operations in the property. In the above background, this Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to refrain from interfering with the agricultural operations in W.P.(C)NO.16970/2009 2 the property covered by Exhibit P3 order of the Forest Tribunal Palakkad in O.A. No.492/1975. 2. We notice that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents is a dispute contemplated under Section 10(1) of the Act. Section 10(1) reads as follows: “10. Settlement of disputes by the Tribunal.--(1) Where any dispute arises as to whether -- (a)any land is an ecologically fragile land or not; or (b)any ecologically fragile land or portion thereof has vested in the Government or not; or (c)the compensation determined under Section 8 is insufficient or not the person who claims that the land is not an ecologically fragile land or that the ecologically fragile land has not vested in the Government, or that the compensation is not sufficient, may, within five years from the date of commencement of this Act or within six months from the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 declaring the land to be an ecologically fragile land or the date of communication of compensation under Section 8, as the case may be, or within such time as the Government may notify W.P.(C)NO.16970/2009 3 in this behalf, apply to the Tribunal for settlement of the dispute.” Such a dispute can be resolved by the Tribunal constituted under Section 9 of the Act. So, the remedy of the petitioner to redress her grievance is to move the Tribunal constituted under the Act. The High Court is constituted as the appellate court against the decision of the Tribunal. Therefore, it is not proper for the appellate court to act as the original authority and try to resolve the above dispute. In view of the above position, the Writ Petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and her right to move the Tribunal under the aforementioned Act. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.P.(C)NO.16970/2009 4 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.P.(C)No. 16970/2009 JUDGMENT 28th July, 2009 W.P.(C)NO.16970/2009 5