IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 28404 of 2008(F) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- M.C. SANTHA W/O. LATE KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 53, SREE SANTHI ANGAMALY SOUTH. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ 1. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND CUSTODIAN VESTED FOREST, PALGHAT. 2. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER MANNARGHAT 3. RANGE OFFICER, AGALY. 4. RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT OTTAPPALAM. 5. DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, PALAKKAD SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.28404/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 7.10.1996 OF SRO AGALY. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA 583/76 OF FOREST TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER RESTORING PROPERTY TO THE PETITIONER'S PREDECESSOR. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT SHOWING PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER SHOWING ASSIGNMENT OF JENMOM RIGHT TO PETITIONER PREDECESSOR IN OA 1432/1970 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, AGALY. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER FOR CORRECTING THE RESURVEY NUMBERS. EXT.P7: PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED TO MY PREDECESSOR DT 7.3.96. EXT.P8: PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALLAMALA DT 6.2.1997. EXT.P9: PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAN. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 28404 OF 2008 (F) ===================== Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims ownership over 7.50 acres of land in Sy.No.1841 of Agali Village. Ext.P1 is stated to be her title deed. According to the petitioner, in respect of this land, there were proceedings before the Forest Tribunal, Manjeri as OA 582/76 and by Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal, the land was declared to be not vested forest. Petitioner is also referring to Ext.P3, by which the land was restored to its owner following Ext.P2 order of the Forest Tribunal. Petitioner also refers to Ext.P4 tax receipt and Ext.P5, the proceedings of the Land Tribunal, Agali by which purchase certificate was issued to her predecessor in interest. It is stated that it is on the strength of Exts.P2 to P5 that the petitioner purchased the property as per Ext.P1. 2. The complaint in this writ petition is that following a resurvey that was conducted, the land in question which was situated in Sy.No.1841 of Agali Village was included in R.S.No.605, which is a reserved forest. It is stated that in order to get this mistake corrected, petitioner filed Ext.P6 before the 4th respondent and orders have not been passed. In the meanwhile, on the basis that the land in question is a part of the reserved WPC 28404/08 :2 : forest, according to the petitioner, she is prevented from carrying on the agricultural activities and also removing the timber that is already cut and stacked in the property. It is in these circumstances, petitioner has approached this Court praying that the respondents be directed not to prevent the petitioner from doing agricultural operations in the land including removal of timber. 3. The 3rd respondent has filed a statement. According to the 3rd respondent, the land in question is not identifiable. It is stated that Ext.P4, by which the petitioner claims to have paid tax in respect of the property carries the survey number 1139 while Ext.P3 restoration certificate certifies restoration of the land in Sy.No.1841 of Agali Village. It is stated that the petitioner is now trying to remove timber from the land in Sy.No.1139 where as what is covered by her title document is the land in Sy.No.1841. Thus in effect, what the respondents contends is that the land is not identifiable. 4. Even according to the petitioner, following the resurvey that was conducted, due to the mistakes that were committed, her property situated in Sy.No.1841 has been included in R.S.No.605, which forms part of the reserved forest. It was to get this alleged mistake corrected that the petitioner approached the 4th respondent by filing Ext.P6 WPC 28404/08 :3 : representation. Therefore, as a first step for giving a quietus to the dispute, what is required to be done is that the 4th respondent should pass orders on Ext.P6 and thus got the mistake, if any, corrected. 5. In view of the above, I direct the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6. This shall be done in the next adalath when similar such requests are also scheduled to be considered. 6. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for carrying out agricultural operations including removal of timber is concerned, the stand of the respondents as disclosed in the statement is that the petitioner has not made any application seeking permission for removal of the timber. This is a statutory requirement and therefore, necessarily, it is for the petitioner to make such application to the appropriate authorities. Therefore, it is directed that depending upon the order to be passed on Ext.P6, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority seeking permission for removal of the timber, in which appropriate orders shall be passed. Writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp