IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 18616 of 2009(V) PETITIONERS: 1. RANIYAMMA JOSE, W/O.JOSE, KUTTIYANICKAL HOUSE,THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. MAJU JOSE, S/O.JOSE,KUTTIYANICKAL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD,COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD. 3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NENMARA, PALAGHAT. 5. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER,KOLLANGODE,PALAGHAT. 6. THE TAHSILDAR,CHITOOR TALUK, KOLLANGODE, PALAGHAT. 7. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTHALAMADA.I, CHITTOOR TALUK,PALAGHAT. 8. M/S.GEMINI PLANTATIONS, A FIRM NOW HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PUTHENVEETIL,AYARKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM,REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.P.C.JAMES, PUTHENVEETTIL,AYARKUNNAM.PO, KOTTAYAM. BY ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI. RANJITH THAMPAN-R1 TO R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C.NO.18616 OF 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONERS'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: A true copy of the Order passed in I.A No.436 of 1966 in O S 1 of 1964 dated 23.8.1966. Ext.P2: A true copy of the certified extract of M/s Gemini Plantation with the Registrar of firms in Kerala, under section 59 dated 18.12.2007. Ext.P3: True copy of the Registered Deed No.2485/1996 of the SRO Kollankode, in favour of the 1st petitioner dated 7.10.1996. Ext.P4: True copy of plan of the said extent of property in the possession of the 1st petitioner as duly certified by the Forest Surveyor dated 12.7.1991. Ext.P5: True copy of the Assignment Deed No.2487/1996 of the SRO Kollankode, in favour of the 2nd respondent dated 7.10.1996. Ext.P6: True copy of the tax receipt issued by the village officer Muthalamada I in favour of the 1st petitioner dated 2.9.1998. Ext.P7: True copy of the tax receipt issued by the village officer Muthalamada I in favour of the 2nd petitioner dated 2.9.1998. Ext.P8: True copy of the Possession Certificate issued by the village officer Muthalamada I in favour of the 1st petitioner dated 9.9.1998. Ext.P9: True copy of the Possession Certificate issued by the village officer Muthalamada I in favour of the 2nd petitioner dated 9.9.1998. Ext.P10: True copy of the basic tax receipt issued by the village officer Muthalamada I in favour of the 1st petitioner dated 26.5.2004. Ext.P11: True copy of the basic tax receipt issued by the village officer Muthalamada I in favour of the 2nd petitioner dated 26.5.2004. W.P.C.No.18616 of 2009 Ext.P12: True copy of the inspection report prepared by the Agricultural Development Branch of the Canara Bank dated 22.2.1999. Ext.P13: True copy of the representation made by the 1st petitioner to the 3rd respondent dated 1.2.2009. Ext.P14: True copy of the Mahazar prepared by the 5th respondent dated 9.6.2009. Ext.P15: True copy of the forest offence seizure report under section 36 of the Forest Act in offence No.9/2009. Ext.P16: True copy of the representation made by the Cherukida Karshaka Sankam before the 2nd respondent dated 30.7.2008. Ext.P17: True copy of the reply received by the Cherukida Karshaka Sangam from the 2nd respondent dated 25.2.2009. Ext.P18: True copy of the report submitted by the 6th respondent to the 2nd respondent dated 23.11.2008. Ext.P19: A true copy of the Judgment passed in O.P No.31094 of 2000 dated 3.10.2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)NO. 18616 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners submit that they are owners of certain lands covered by Exts.P3 and P5 title deeds. According to them, those are not properties covered by the notification issued by the respondents under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). But, the respondents are trespassing into the property and threatening the workmen of the petitioners who are doing agricultural operations. They are also trying to forcefully dispossess the petitioners and have caused damages to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. In the above background, this Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i. Declare that the respondents 3, 4 and 5 have no right or authority to enter into any portion of the petitioners land covered by Ext.P3 and Ext.P5 under the pretext that those lands are ecologically fragile lands without proper declaration and notification under the Act. W.P.(C) 18616/2009 2 ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents 3, 4 and 5 or any body acting under them not to threaten and harass the petitioners' and their workers in any manner against doing agricultural operation in their property and protecting the crops by providing proper fencing etc. along the eastern boundary thereof. iii.Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents 3, 4 and 5 or anybody acting under them from illegally and forcefully dispossessing the petitioners' from any portion of the land in their possession and obtained by virtue of Ext.P3 and Ext.P5. iv.Direct the respondents 3 to 5 to pay compensation amounting to Rs.3 Lakhs for the destruction of the solar fencing and removal of the wires and poles illegally taken by them from the petitioners' property. 2. Essentially, the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents is whether the land covered by Exts.P3 and P5 and said to be in the possession of the petitioners is ecologically fragile land or not. It is a dispute which can be resolved under Section 10(1) of the Act by the Tribunal constituted under the aforementioned Act under Section 9. If the decision of the Tribunal is not satisfactory, the petitioners have a right of appeal to the High Court under Section 11 of the Act, against the decision of the Tribunal. So, in this case, having regard to the W.P.(C) 18616/2009 3 nature of the dispute between the parties, the appellate court cannot act as the original authority. The petitioners have to move the Tribunal. In view of the above position, the Writ Petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners and their right to move the Tribunal under the aforementioned Act. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.P.(C) 18616/2009 4 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.P.(C)NO.18616/2009 JUDGMENT 28th July, 2009 W.P.(C) 18616/2009 5