IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3771 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- K.KALYANIKUTTY AMMA, D/O.NARAYANI AMMA, THANIKUNNU, KADAMPUR P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GANGADAS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN, FOREST COMPLEX, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. ADDITIONAL AG SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 3771 OF 2009 (Y) ==================== Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P6. Ext.P6 is the order passed by the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode in IA Nos.170 and 171/06 in OA No.441/75. 2. OA No.441/75 was filed by the petitioner invoking Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. OA was allowed by judgment dated 24/8/77. In the schedule to the OA and in the judgment, the property covered by the proceedings is indicated as Sy.No.83/5-D1-D2. 3. Long after the disposal of the OA, in 2006, the aforesaid applications were filed by the petitioner praying for correction of the survey number into 83/5-D3. The only evidence that the petitioner had to support her claim is Ext.P5, a report submitted by an Advocate Commissioner. It is to be noted that according to the petitioner, all documents showed the survey number as originally mentioned in the OA. 4. The claim of the petitioner was contested by the Divisional Forest Officer. According to him, there was no mistake in the survey number and as per the records, the survey number as declared was the correct one. It is also the contention of the DFO that the attempt of the WPC 3771/09 :2 : petitioner was to grab some other forest land by filing the petitions. 5. Although the parties did not adduce any evidence before the Tribunal, Tribunal appreciated the case and rejected the application. A reading of the order shows that there was no evidence to prove that there was a mistake in the survey number. The Tribunal also declined to act upon the commission report for the reason that the property mentioned therein as belonging to the petitioner was not identified with the help of any title deed or any other reliable document. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there was any error in describing the survey number of the property. 6. Having gone through Ext.P6 order in its entirety, I see no justification to take a view different from what the Tribunal has taken. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp