IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 18404 of 2009(U) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. CHANDRAN, S/O.VELAN, AGED 65 YEARS, VAZHUKKAPARA HOUSE, MUNDOOR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. RAJAN V.T., S/O.THEETHU, AGED 60 YEARS, VALAKKADVEEDU, NOCHIPPULLI, PALAKKAD. 3. CHENTHAMARAKSHAN, S/O.THEETHU, AGED 54 YEARS, VALAKKADVEEDU, NOCHIPPULLI, PALAKKAD. 4. ANDAVAN, S/O.THEETHU, AGED 75 YEARS, VALAKKADVEEDU, NOCHIPPULLI, PALAKKAD. 5. CHANDRAN V.C., S/O.CHAMI, AGED 63 YEARS, VALAKKADVEEDU, NOCHIPPULLI, MUNDOOR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.FOREST AND WILD LIFE (E) DEPT. GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, OLAVAKKOD DIVISION, PLAKKAD. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD. R1 TO R4 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.M.POULOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.18404 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT An extent of 12.07 Acres of property was held by Krishnankutty Nair, Madathil House, Vellinezhi, Ottapalam Taluk. According to the petitioners, they were cultivating the land. The Forest Officials treated the said property as forest land and Krishnankutty Nair, therefore, moved the Forest Tribunal by O.A.No.607/97 claiming that the said property cannot be treated as vested forests. He claimed exemption under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act. His claim was accepted as per Ext.P1 order. This was affirmed in Ext.P2 order by a Bench of this court on 15.1.1981. It was thereafter the petitioners acquired title as per Exts.P3 to P7. W.P.(C).No.18404 of 2009 :: 2 :: 2. Krishnankutty Nair had apparently sought for restoration of the property, after executing the title deeds Exts.P3 to P7. Such formal restoration has not taken place. Thereafter the petitioners have sought for restoration and this also has not been heeded to. This writ petition is filed for the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to restore possession of the property described in the writ petition and in Ext.P1 to the petitioners forthwith; ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to pay monitory compensation to the petitioners for restraining them from enjoying the property since 1982. iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the fourth respondent to collect basic tax without W.P.(C).No.18404 of 2009 :: 3 :: interest from the petitioners in respect of the properties held by them and issue possession certificates to them forthwith. iv) Issue such other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent. Paragraph 4 of the same reads as follows: “On receipt of the above sketch this respondent requested the Government through the Conservator of Forests for the permission of the Government to restore the property. The Government granted permission by Order No.4404/E2/2008/F&WLD dt. 2.9.2008. True copy of the order is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R3(c). On receipt of Ext.R3(c) this respondent through his subordinates conduct an enquiry for the purpose of restoration. Then it came to the notice that the OA applicant is no more and he is having legal heirs to receive the property. Therefore, the legal heirs who are available in the locality were informed about the proposed restoration. W.P.(C).No.18404 of 2009 :: 4 :: However, they did not take any interest to receive the property. Hence the property could not be restored to the legal heirs of the OA applicant.” 4. It is, therefore, clear that Government itself has taken a decision for restoration of the property. They have not restored it apparently because the legal heirs of the original claimant Krishnankutty Nair has not turned up. The respondents have also denied the petitioners' title to the property. 5. The State cannot, at this point of time, deny the petitioners title to the property acquired as per Exts.P3 to P7, executed after this court had dismissed the appeal against Ext.P1 order passed by the Forest tribunal. Obviously, the legal heirs of Krishnankutty Nair have not taken any steps, because their father had already alienated the property in favour of the W.P.(C).No.18404 of 2009 :: 5 :: petitioners. The respondents also have no case that there is any rival claim as such to the properties in question. In these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents 2 to 4 shall take steps to see that the property covered by Ext.P1 and referred to in Ext.R3(a) is formally restored to the petitioners within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//