IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 17808 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MARY PAUL, W/O.PAULOSE, PALAKUNNATH THEKKED HOUSE, THEKKEKULAM DESOM, PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ASSIGNMENT NO.11, THRISSUR. 3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PEECHI RANGE THRISSUR. 4. SPECIAL REVENUE INSPECTOR(LA)THRISSUR. ADDL.5 th RESPONDENT: - THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR ADDITIONAL 5th RESPONDENT IS SUO-MOTO IMPLEADED AS PER JUDGMENT DATED 22/2/2010 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.17808 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner seeks for a direction to complete the process of assignment of an extend of 4 acres and 90 cents of land at Peechi which according to the petitioner have been in possession of her husband from 1960 onwards. The property has been cleared and is being cultivated with various crops. The family is residing in a house numbered as XIII/498 of Panancheri Panchayath. 2. The application for assignment is under the Regularisation and Occupation of Forest Land prior to 1977 Rules 1993. 3. The petitioner has produced Ext.P1 as the copy of the application. It is pointed out even though the various steps were taken earlier, there did not finally result in grant of patta to them. Ext.P2 is the photo copy of the Proforma for Joint Verification isssued by respondents 2 to 4. Ext.P3 is the copy of a further representation, and Ext.P5 is a further communication issued in this regard. W.P.(C)No.17808 of 2009 2 4. The second respondent has filed a statement as directed by this Court. In the statement it is averred that the petitioner submitted an application for assignment and an enquiry was conducted and it was decided by the respondents that she is eligible for only 1 acre. R2(a) is the copy of the application. It is also pointed out even though joint verification was thought of, the petitioner did not agree for measurement of the land contending that the property will be permitted to be measured only if 4 acres is allotted to her. R2(b) is the copy of the report of the Special Revenue Inspector dated 17/1/2007. It is also pointed out that the issue with regard to the validity of the rules itself was pending before the Apex Court. 5. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit disputing the averment that the application is only for issuance of assignment order for 1 acre. It is stated that the petitioner had never waiver the right over 4.90 acres of property or any portion of it for any reason. In the light of the dispute whether the application is for 1 acre or for 4.90 acres of land, and also in the light of the fact that various formalities are yet to be completed, it is appropriate that the entire matter is considered by the District Collector. W.P.(C)No.17808 of 2009 3 6. The District Collector will verify the averments with regard to the case of the petitioner, that the application is for the entire property in their possession. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that on Ext.P1 application due enquiries have been conducted earlier which is clear from L.A.1182/93 and Sl.No.336. Therefore the entire files will be called for and verified by the District Collector. The petitioner will be free to file a fresh application showing the extend claimed. 7. Appropriate decision will be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The District Collector, Thrissur is suo-moto impleaded as additional 5th respondent as he is not a party here. The petitioner will make available a copy of the writ petition and a copy of this judgment for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj