IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 26211 of 2006(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MADHAVI AMMA, WIDOW OF JANARDHANAN, RESIDING AT ARAPPATH KALLINGAL VEEDU, KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK.(THE PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HER BROTHER AND P.A.HOLDER K.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.U.P.KRISHNA MOOTHAN,RESIDING AT KARNAKI NAGAR, VADAKKANTHARA P.O., PALAKKAD.) BY SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 3. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, PALAKKAD. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.26211/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DTD. 10.12.02. P2:- COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DTD. 1.6.04. P3:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 2.5.05. P4:-COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 2.5.05. P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 21.7.04. P6:- COPY OF THE CHALAN DTD. 21.78.04. P7:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 16.10.04. P8:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22.1.05. P9:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 26.5.05. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 26211 of 2006 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 28th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the total lethargy on the part of the respondents with regard to the non-correction of the village records, after identification and demarcation of the property concerned and non-acceptance of the basic tax from the petitioner, in spite of the turn of events after a long battle which was being fought by the petitioner for the last three decades. 2. The property taken over from the petitioner, alleging that it was the forest land (2.12 Acres in the Palakkad taluk), was sought to be restored by filing O.A. 121 of 1975 before the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikkode. The O.A. was filed by the petitioner claiming exemption from vesting, under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. After considering the merits involved, the Forest Tribunal allowed the application in part, which however was subjected to challenge from the part of the State by filing MFA 1128 of 1998 before this Court. This culminated in Ext. P1 judgment passed on 10th December 2002, whereby the verdict passed by the Forest Tribunal in favour of the petitioner was upheld. It was also observed in the said verdict that, it was needless to mention that the State would implement W.P. (C) No. 26211 of 2010 : 2 : the orders passed by the Tribunal as modified. 3. Pursuant to the above verdict, the possession of the property concerned was restored to the petitioner, as borne by Ext. P3 and P4 certificates issued by the first respondent/the Divisional Forest Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext. P5 representation before the second respondent seeking to identify the property and to demarcate the boundaries. Necessary fee was paid as borne by Ext. P6 receipt. On satisfying the requirements, the second respondent directed the 3rd respondent/Taluk Surveyor, vide Ext. P7, to effect the measurement of the above property and to fix the boundaries and submit a report, as specified. It is stated that nothing transpired in positive, thereafter. But, on a fine morning on 22.01.2005, Ext. P8 communication was issued by the second respondent to the power of attorney holder of the petitioner, informing that the property covered by O A 121 of 1975 still continued to be as 'forest land' in the village records and required to produce necessary records to effect appropriate correction. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in spite of production of the relevant documents including the verdict passed by the Tribunal, copy of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court and other relevant materials such as Exts. P3 & P4 certificates and periphery sketch, the matter still stands in 'as is where is' condition and the W.P. (C) No. 26211 of 2010 : 3 : petitioner is unable to enjoy the property by remitting the basic tax. The request made by the petitioner has been turned down by the 4th respondent, as revealed from Ext. P9 (sent by the 4th respondent to the second respondent), which made the petitioner to approach this Court, seeking for appropriate direction in this regard. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. Though the above Writ Petition was admitted on 06.10.2006, no counter affidavit has been filed from the part of the respondents till date, presumably for the reason that, no factual position is required to be disputed. In so far as the Forest Tribunal has passed an order, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, as per Ext. P1 judgment; pursuant to which, the possession has been restored to the petitioner vide Exts. P3 and P4 certificates issued by the first respondent and further since the second respondent has admitted the receipt of application submitted by the petitioner for identifying and demarcating the property and also as to the remittance of necessary fees in this regard leading to Ext. P7 direction given to the 3rd respondent to pursue further steps, the only issue now remaining to be considered is whether there is any justification in further delay; which can be answered only in the negative. W.P. (C) No. 26211 of 2010 : 4 : 6. In the above circumstances, the respondents are hereby directed to take all necessary steps and finalize the further proceedings by causing the concerned property to be identified, measured out, and to have the boundaries fixed accordingly. The respondents are also directed to make necessary entries/corrections in the village records, thereby enabling the petitioner to enjoy the property by remitting the basic tax as well. The proceedings as above shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed. No cost. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd