IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 27559 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- OUSEPH CHACKO, S/O. CHACKO, MEMURIYIL VEEDU, KURISUPARA, KALLAR VATTAYAR P.O., ANAVIRATTY. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, REVENUE , GOVT. SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, FOREST, GOVT. SECRETARIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER,IDUKKI DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.27559 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to be in occupation and possession of 5 Acres of land in Mannam Kandom Village of Devikulam Taluk, Idukki District which is classified as Cardamom Hill Reserve by the Government. According to the petitioner, he is in occupation and possession of the property and is cultivating cardamom therein from 1968 onwards. He had filed an application for assigning the said land in his name under Cardamom Lease Rules to the Commissioner (District Collector), Devikulam. 2. The main relief sought for in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents not to destroy the cultivation in the petitioner's property. This is the only relief practicably sought for by the petitioner. 3. The 3rd respondent has filed counter affidavit in the matter. It is pointed out that the disputed property upon which the petitioner is making claim is not a cardamom hill reserve and it is reserve forest and a part of the notified Malayattoor Reserve Forest. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not occupying or possessing any such land. In the light of the fact that the W.P.(C)No.27559 of 2009 2 identity of the property itself is disputed, it is only appropriate that the petitioner shall avail of the remedy by way of filing a suit in the Civil Court. With liberty to do so, this writ petition is closed. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj