IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 14TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 13883 of 2007(C) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. VEEMBAN, S/O. CHAMI, 2. VELAYUDHAN, S/O. CHAMI, 3. NAYADI, S/O. KOMBI, 4. VESU, WIDOW OF RAMU, (ALL ARE RESIDING AT PEZHUMCODE THOLANUR AMSOM, KUTHANNUR II VILLAGE , ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ) BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO FOREST & WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, ARAKINAR P.O., MATHOTTAM, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS, EASTERN CIRCLE, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD-678 002. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. M.R. SABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13883 of 2007(C) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN O.A.Nos. 41,42, 43 AND 44 OF 1998 ON THE FILE OF THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD DATED 28.1.1999. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN M.F.A.No.514/2000 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 27.7.2005. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No.13883 OF 2007 ......................................................................... Dated this the 5th September, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are stated as aggrieved of non- implementation of Ext.P1 order passed by the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode, which was confirmed as per the judgment of this Court in M.F.A.No.514 OF 2000. The sequence of events is as follows: 2. The petitioners sought to have a declaration in respect of different extents of land . The O.A. preferred before the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode was allowed as per Ext. P1 verdict dated 28.01.1999, granting a declaration that the property mentioned therein was not a private forest. Aggrieved by the said verdict, the matter was taken up in appeal by the State (M.F.A.No. 514 OF 2000) which culminated in Ext.P2 judgment, whereby interference was declined and the appeal was dismissed as devoid of any merit. Even though the said verdict was passed as W.P.(C) No.13883 OF 2007 2 early as 27.07.2005, nothing transpired in the positive despite the lapse of several years, which made the petitioners to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. Though the writ petition was admitted issuing notice to the respondents on 27.04.2007, no counter affidavit has been filed till date. In the said circumstance, this Court finds that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for not implementing Ext.P1 as confirmed in Ext.P2. The learned Government Pleader however submits, whether the property has already been declared as 'fragile land' under the EFL Act, still forms a matter to be considered. The said submission does not appear to be palatable to this Court, mainly for the reason that the appointed day as per the EFL Act is 02.06.2000 (as per the Notification dated 08.06.2005), whereas Ext.P2 judgment was passed by this Court in the MFA subsequent to that date, i.e. on 27.7.2005. If at all any such contention was there for the respondents, it was open for them to have it placed before the Division Bench, when W.P.(C) No.13883 OF 2007 3 the matter was finalised by the Court as per Ext. P2 judgment in MFA, which obviously has not been done. That apart, nothing prevented the State/Department from filing any Review Petition, if the factual position was actually something else. No such course is also pursued in this case. In the said circumstance, this Court finds that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. The respondents are directed to give effect to Ext.P1 and P2 verdicts and restore the possession of the property to the petitioners forthwith. Appropriate steps shall be taken in accordance with law and the proceedings shall be finalised, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of, as above . P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk