IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19840 of 2011(D) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- V. JOHN GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE, AGED 66 YEARS, VALLIATTU HOUSE, KOTTAPADY VILLAGE, MEAPADY DESOM, SOUTH WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLARIMALA, VILLAGE VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673001. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPT. OF FOREST, TRIVANDRUM-695001. 3. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS OLAVAKODE CIRCLE, OLAVAKODE-678002. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 19840/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER IN SUOMOTO PROCEEDINGS NO.3112/1976 DATED 31/01/1977. P2: COPY OF ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 25/04/1977. P3: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT 27/03/2000. P4: COPY OF THE DEMAND FOR REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN INSTALLMENT DATED 06/02/2001 ISSUED BY VYTHIRI CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. P5: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLARIMALA DATED 11/06/1996. P6: COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 12/04/1996. P7: COPY OF THE LETTER NUMBER RT1/4/11 DATED NIL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.19840 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JULY, 2011 J U D G M E N T The dispute in this writ petition is regarding the legality of the stand taken by the respondents in Ext.P7 communication. It is stated in Ext.P7 that out of the property situated in Re-Sy No.337/1,2,3, a portion of which is in the possession of the petitioner, covered by notification dated 04-05-2001 issued under the provisions of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act. It is stated that it was therefore that tax has not accepted from the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 order passed by the Land Tribunal, Ext.P2 purchase certificate in respect of 7.5 acres of land was issued to him. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was paying tax in respect of the said property and that later, the 1st respondent refused to accept the tax. He applied under the Right to Information Act, and got Ext.P7 reply stating that the land is vested forest and that the notification to that effect was issued on 04-05-2001. W.P.(C) No.19840/2011 -2- 4. It is thereupon this writ petition is filed, seeking following directions: “(i) Declare that property of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 and P2 documents are not affected by forest notification number B6- 13762/93 and 04-05-2001 as informed by the 1st respondent through Ext.P7 communication and that the petitioner has absolute right over the property as it is not restricted by Private Forest (Vesting of Assignment) Act and the rules thereof. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus to the 1st respondent to accept the basic tax of the Ext.P1 and P2 property and continue to receive the same without any objection whatsoever.” 5. The contention raised by the petitioner is that Section 3 (2) of the Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act provides that nothing contained in Section 3 (1) shall apply, the land comprised in Private Forests held by an owner under his personal cultivation as in within the ceiling limb under the Kerala Lands Reforms Act any building or structure of the building apartment thereto stands excluded from vesting under Section 3 (1). It is contended that since the land in question quantifies for the exemption under Section 3 (2) of the stand that it is a vested forest is legal. 6. Essentially the dispute is whether the land in question is a vested forest land or not. If there is such a dispute, the W.P.(C) No.19840/2011 -3- remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Tribunal by making application under Section 8 (1) of the Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act. Therefore, the petitioner will have to seek remedy before the Tribunal and without prejudice to that right writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE AMG True copy P.A to Judge