IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 26737 of 2003(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.T.ITTIYACHAN, CHERUVALLATH HOUSE, THONDERNAD AMSOM, THONDER DESOM, N.WYANADU TALUK, WYANADU DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS, PALGHAT. 3. D.F.O. MANANTHAVADY, WYNADU DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP 19695 OF 2001 T DATED 4.4.2003 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS, KOZHIKODE DATED 10.12.94 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. B3 6967/01 DATED 31.5.2003 OF THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FOREST. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A.NO. 83 OF 1977 DATED 11.6.1979 OF THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, CALICUT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.1.1985 IN M.F.A.NO. 320/79 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 6.6.1991 IN M.F.A.NO. 246/1986 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 26737 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order whereunder the Conservator of Forests, Olavakkode Circle, declined to restore 6.93 acres of land to the petitioner in terms of his request. I heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased 33.93 acres of land from another person in the year 1962. Even though the area is stated to be planted with coffee, lemon grass, the forest department later notified 16 acres of land as vested forest. The challenge against notification was rejected by the Forest Tribunal and confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court. While the case of Forest Department is that only 16 acres is taken possession of by the forest department, which is vested forest under the decision of the Forest Tribunal and that of this Court, the case of the petitioner is that forest department has taken over 6.93 acres of land in excess of the area declared as vested forest. W.P. is filed for direction to the respondents to survey the property and restore the excess land to the petitioner. It is seen from Ext.P3 that according to Conservator of Forests, the forest department 2 has taken over only the area declared as vested forests which is 16 acres. The proceedings under the Private Forest Vesting Act does not provide for measurement of private property or to account for shortage of property held by the owners. The fact that petitioner's purchase deed contains larger area than what is in his possession is no ground to hold that the Forest Department has taken it. However, since the forest department has a case that area declared as vested forest is only 16 acres and that is what is taken possession of, it is for them to demarcate the boundaries of such property, prepare a sketch and give it to the petitioner. If petitioner finds that excess area is taken possession, petitioner can make an application for survey of properties both taken over and held by him to the Survey Authority who will in the presence of petitioner and Forest Officials concerned survey the property and give report. If excess is taken over by Forest Department under Survey Report, such excess over 16 acres should be restored to the petitioner. Petitioner will produce title deed before survey authorities and give copy to Forest officials at the time of survey. W.P. is accordingly disposed of directing third respondent to prepare a sketch, demarcate the 16 acres taken over by the forest department under the notification 3 declaring it as vested forest. This should be done within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner. Survey, if required by petitioner should be done within two months thereafter. Second respondent is directed to pass orders after survey, restoring excess land if any taken over to the petitioner. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 4