IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 OP.No. 716 of 2003(I) --------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HARIDAS, S/O. KUTTAN, PITTUPEEDIKA VEEDU, KODUVAYOOR POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.M.P.LIJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NEMMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FORESTS) BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. P.M. PAULOSE THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.No. 716 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 proceedings initiated, alleging forest offence against him, in respect of the quarrying operations conducted in the property in question, which is stated as vested with the Government, being a forest land. The petitioner contends that the idea and understanding of the respondents is quite wrong and unfounded, as the property exclusively belongs to the petitioner who purchased the same from the previous owner on the strength of Ext.P1 sale deed for valuable sale consideration. It is contended that ever since the execution of the sale deed, the petitioner is enjoying the said property with absolute ownership, exclusive possession and with clear and marketable title. 2. With regard to the flow of title, the property originally belonged to one Balasubrahmanyam who sold the same to one Padmanabhan Nair, as per Ext.P1 sale deed. Later, the said Padmanabhan Nair filed O.A No.985/1975 O.P.No. 716 OF 2003 . : 2 : before the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad under section 8 of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and assigning)Act, 1971 for exemption and as per order dated 23.2.1978, the O.A. was allowed, a true copy of the relevant portion of which has been produced along with the Writ Petition as Ext.P2. This was followed by necessary certificate issued in favour of Padmanabhan Nair as borne by Ext.P3. Subsequently, in 1984 Padmanabhan Nair sold the above properties to one Devaki, vide Ext.P4 sale deed. It was from the latter, that the property concerned herein was purchased by the petitioner as per Ext. P5 sale deed. It is also the case of the petitioner that the restoration as revealed from Ext.P3 was confirmed to the petitioner and the assignor Devaki by the concerned Conservator of Forests as per Ext.P6. The petitioner was carrying out quarrying operations in the aforesaid property on the basis of the necessary sanction/licence obtained from the concerned authorities and it is without any regard to the said vital aspects that the forest officials, have issued Ext.P7 alleging forest offence against the petitioner, which hence is O.P.No. 716 OF 2003 . : 3 : under challenge. 3. Pursuant to the order dated 28.11.2006, the first respondent filed an affidavit almost confirming the sequence of events as to the flow of title, as contended by the petitioner. However, issuance of Ext.P7 has been sought to be explained, stating that the survey stones were found missing and the departmental authorities were required to survey and fix the boundary stones. The missing stones were accordingly re-installed in the boundary of the restored property and the forest staff, on inspecting the site, found that the quarrying was being done in bit no. 1 of the restored property as per the survey sketch. It is further stated that, as requested by the first respondent vide his letter dated 7.6.2005, the area was surveyed and demarcated by the Assistant Director of Mini Survey, Kozhikode and fixed the boundary stones in respect of O.A scheduled property. The gist of the contentions in the counter affidavit is that, issuance of Ext.P7 alleging forest offence against the petitioner was under a wrong impression, that the quarrying was being done in the forest land as the O.P.No. 716 OF 2003 . : 4 : boundary stones in the scheduled property were found missing. But it is conceded that, pursuant to subsequent survey and fixation of boundary, the quarrying operations were being pursued by the petitioner in the property exclusively owned, possessed and enjoyed by him on the basis of Ext.P5 title, which stands derived from Ext. P1 to P4. In the above facts and circumstances, there is nothing further to be adjudicated in the matter, but for quashing Ext.P7, which accordingly is hereby set aside. The OP is allowed as above. No costs. (P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) jma