IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 968 of 2009(M) ------------------------------------ O.A.NO.15/2007 OF FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE. .................... PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS IN O.A. 15/2007, 6, 7, 8 & 9 OF 2008 ON THE OF THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MINI SEBASTIAN, W/O.SEBASTIAN THOMAS, PORAYATH HOUSE, KEEZHUR AMSAM,PAYYAMCHERY DESAM, P.O.IRITTY, KANNUR. 2. BIJI JOSEPH,W/O.TOMY M.MATHEW, MANGUTHEL HOUSE, KEEZHUR AMSOM, PAYYAMCHERY DESOM, P.O. IRITTY, KANNUR. 3. TOMY M. MATHEW, MANGUTHEL HOUSE, KEEZHUR AMSOM PAYYAMCHERY DESOM,P.O.IRITTY,KANNUR. 4. MARY JAMES, W/O.JAMES, KOLLARATH HOUSE, MANATHANA AMSOM, MURUMGODI DESAM,MALA P.O. KANNUR. 5. ALEXANDER JAMES, S/O.JAMES, KOLLARATH HOUSE, MANATHANA AMSOM, MURINGODI DESAM, MALA P.O. KANNUR. BY ADV. MR.M.C.JOHN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, F & WLD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN, FOREST COMPLEX, OLAVAKODE, PALAKKAD. 3. THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE R1 TO R3 BY SPL GOVT. PLEADER (FORESTS) MR. M.P. PRAKASH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.968/2009-M: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE I.A. 320/2008 DTD. 31/10/2008 IN O.A. NO. 15/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.A. 325/2008 DTD. 01/11/2008 IN O.A. NO. 15/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN O.A. 15/2007 ON 25/11/2008. EXT.P.3.A: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN I.A. 326/2008 IN O.A. 6/2008 DTD. 25/11/2008. EXT.P.3.B: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN I.A. 327/2008 IN O.A.7/08 DT. 25/11/08. EXT.P.3.C: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/11/08 IN I.A. 328/2008 IN O.A. 8/2008. EXT.P.3.D: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/11/2008 IN I.A. 329/2008 IN O.A. 9/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.968 of 2009 - M --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To call for the records relating to Exts.P1, P2 and P3 series. ii) To issue a writ of certiorari setting aside Exts.P3, P3(a), (b), (c) and (d). iii) To issue a direction to the 3rd respondent to take up Ext.P1 application and to pass appropriate orders therein as required under Rule 4(1) of the Tribunal Rules 1972 and to hold a common enquiry in all the five applications of the petitioners. iv) To direct the Tribunal to appoint a common commission for all the five applications after consolidating the applications for common enquiry.” 2. Petitioners have moved five applications as O.A.Nos.15/2008, 6/2008, 7/2008, 8/2008 and 9/2008 under Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for declaration that the property scheduled in those applications are not private forests which have vested with the Government. Petitioners also moved an application for joint trial of the applications. Ext.P1 is the W.P.(C).No.968 of 2009 - M 2 copy of that application. The petitioners have separately moved commission application in their respective I.A. Ext.P2 is the copy of one such application. The Tribunal allowed the commission application appointing a commission in each petition as sought for by the petitioners. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the aforementioned reliefs canvassing that appointment of joint commission in all the petitions. 3. Notice being given, respondents have appeared through Special Government Pleader (Forests). A counter statement has also been filed. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the petition has been filed after moving the Tribunal seeking separate orders for appointment of commission only to get an order from this Court enabling the petitioners to canvass that this Court has passed orders for collection of evidence in common in all the original applications. Predecessors of the present applicants had already filed applications seeking declaration that the land covered by the present petitions has not vested under the provisions of the Act. It is further submitted these petitioners W.P.(C).No.968 of 2009 - M 3 also got impleaded in the previous application moved by the predecessors, and that applications being dismissed, the appeal preferred, is pending before this Court. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioners would submit the subject matter involved in the previous application and the present petitions are different from one another. There were several notifications and few of them subsequent to the land notified under the previous applications is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Whatever that be, in the present writ petition I need not go into the entitlement of the petitioners to seek the reliefs canvassed in their original applications nor of the challenges raised by the respondent that these petitioners are bound by the decision passed in the previous proceedings initiated by their predecessors. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances presented and the submissions made, the Tribunal has to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P1 application for joint trial, moved by the petitioners and then consider whether execution of a joint commission in common or separately W.P.(C).No.968 of 2009 - M 4 has to be passed. So setting aside Ext.P3 series orders, I direct the Tribunal to consider Ext.P1 application as to whether all the petitions filed by the petitioners are to be jointly tried or not. In case it is found that joint trial is feasible and necessary to advance the ends of justice, then it may pass appropriate orders for joint execution of the commission application. I direct the Tribunal to consider and dispose Ext.P1 application within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that whatever observations made by this Court shall not be construed in any way advancing the case of the petitioners or accepting the challenges raised by the Special Government Pleader (Forests) resisting their claims. Writ petition is disposed as indicated above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-