IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 23803 of 1999(H) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ 1. JACOB THOMAS, ARIKUMPURAM HOUSE, MANNAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA. *2. MRS. REENA THOMAS, W/O. LATE RONNY THOMAS, ARIKUMPURAM HOUSE, MANNAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 3. ROBY A THOMAS, S/O. LATE RONNY THOMAS -DO- 4. BINO A THOMAS, S/O. LATE RONNY THOMAS, -DO- *ADDL. P2 TO P4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06/01/2000 IN CMP NO. 214/2000. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CUSTODIAN AND CONSERVATOR OF VESTED FOREST, OLAVAKKODE CIRCLE, PALAKKAD-2. BY SPL. GOVT.PLEADER (FOREST) SRI. RENJITH THAMBAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO. 39718/1999 IN OP NO. 23803/1999 H. DISMISSED 01/02/2008. SD/- K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN O.A NO. 17/81 AND 16/81 OF THE FOREST TRIBUNAL DT. 29/09/86. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MFA NO. 300/89 DT. 30/09/93. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. GO P NO. 73/98/F & WLD DT. 31/08/98. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.23803 of 1999 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner in this Original Petition has approached this court challenging Ext.P3 notification issued under Section 5 of the Preservation of Trees Act, 1986. He seeks a declaration that the Act is not applicable to the petitioner's land measuring 77 and a half acres of land in Survey No.149 of Thiruvambadi Village in Kozhikode District. 2. The petitioner filed O.A before the Tribunal and obtained Ext.P1 order. The claim of the petitioner that 77 and a half acres of land is not a private forest. The O.A came to be considered along with another O.A and it was found that 77 and a half acres is a developed area, where it was planted prior to the coming into force of Act 26 of 1971. The matter came to be confirmed by Ext.P2 judgment in M.F.A filed by the State. There was a direction to restore the land. It is the further case of the petitioner that the second respondent restored the respective properties to the petitioner under the O.A. It is while so, Ext.P3 is issued under the Preservation of Trees Act. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader. Counter affidavit is filed by the State O.P. 23803/1999. 2 contending inter alia that Section 5 of the Preservation of Trees Act is applicable also to lands which are restored and Forest Law has to be understood as interpreted in the light of the dictum laid down in W.P.(C) 202 of 1995. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader would point out that the prayers sought in the writ petition cannot be considered. In the light of the subsequent developments the notification has been issued under the Ecologically Fragile Land Ordinance 16 of 2001 on 27.3.2001. He would contend that in the light of the said developments, the land in question stands vested with the Government. Title to the land as also possession vested with the Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that challenging the notification petitioner filed a writ petition before this court. This court however directed the petitioner to approach the Custodian of Forest under Section 19 of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Custodian. The custodian took a decision which was adverse to the petitioner. The petitioner again challenged the same in another writ petition and the said writ petition, that is W.P.(C) 31378 of 2007 came to be disposed of on 6.12.2007. Therein the court took the view that the action of the Committee in inspecting the land without notice to the petitioners is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The O.P. 23803/1999. 3 proceedings in short came to be quashed and the matter stands remitted back for further proceedings under Section 19 of the Act. 5. I would think that in the light of the subsequent developments which were taken place, I need not consider the question raised by the petitioner. I do not consider it necessary to consider the contentions in the writ petition at this stage. I leave open the contentions. The Original petition is disposed of as above. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb O.P. 23803/1999. 4 K.M. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------- O.P. No.23803 of 1999 ---------------------------------- JUDGMENT 1.2.2008.