IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 23105 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.K.MATHEW,VALIYAVEETTIL PADIKAKAL MALAYIL,VALLAMKULAM.P.O,THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA. *(CORRECTED). *THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS V.K. ABRAHAM. *CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 05/10/2010 IN I.A. 13553/2010 IN W.P.(C).23105/2010-K. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR,CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR,CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,PALLASANA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS(RE-SURVEY),PALAKKAD. 6. SUPERINTENDENT,SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS (RE-SURVEY),PALAKKAD. R1 TO R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.23105/2010-K: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14/06/1979 IN O.A. NO.138/76. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 28/09/1984 IN MFA.NO.451/1979. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DTD. 18/08/2005. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 23/04/2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 24/10/2007 IN W.P.(C).NO.22870/2007. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 26/11/2007. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESURVEY AUTHORITIES. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 13/01/10. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 15/01/2010. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF R.5. DTD. 17/03/2010. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 11/11/05. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.23105 OF 2010(K) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the owner of 5.34 hectors of land in Pallasana Village, Palakkad District. It appears that before the purchase, on implementation of the Kerala Private Forest Vesting and Assignment Act, 1971, the land including the property purchased by the petitioner, which originally belonged to one Krishnankutty Mannadiyar was treated as vested forest. By its order in O.A.No.138/1976, the Forest Tribunal Palakkad held the land exempted from vesting and that order was upheld by this court in its judgment in MFA.No.451/1979. Subsequent to the purchase of the property, petitioner applied for a possession certificate and that was declined. At that stage, he approached this court by filing WP(c).No.22870/2007. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment . A reading of that judgment shows that according to the respondents petitioner had possessed 5.0040 hectors of land in Sy. No.113/3. The respondents also had conceded that after the judgment of the Forest Tribunal and this court, the land was restored to the original owner. On that basis WPC.No.23105 /2010 :2 : the possession certificate was ordered to be given. According to the petitioner subsequent to the judgment, he made an application for getting the property mutated in his name. Orders have not been passed so far. It would appear from Ext.P10 that the file now has been forwarded to the Tahsildar. It is in these circumstances, complaining of inordinate delay in getting the property mutated, the petitioner approached this court. 2. However, referring to Exts.P10 to P11, Government Pleader contends that in the survey records the property is still shown as vested forest and that despite lapse of time petitioner has not so far applied for getting the survey records corrected. It is stated that once, the survey records are corrected then only can the petitioner seek mutation of the property. 3. From the order passed by the Forest Tribunal which was confirmed by this court and from the contents of Ext.P5, it is obvious that the land is not a vested forest. Therefore, even if there is any difference in the survey records that obviously is an erroneous entry and which has to be corrected. 4. Taking note of the submission made by the Government Pleader that the petitioner has not made an application for getting WPC.No.23105 /2010 :3 : the survey records corrected, it is clarified that it will be an application to the survey authority, in which event necessary order will be passed in the light of what is stated above. It is directed that such orders shall be passed by the competent authority at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with an appropriate application of the petitioner. Once the application is made as above, correction in the survey records disposed of, it will be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent Tahsildar who shall pass appropriate orders on the application made by the petitioner under the Transfer of Registry Rules for getting the property mutated in his name. Such orders shall be passed at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of the judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.23105 /2010 :4 :