IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 35770 of 2007(G) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- 1. KUNHIMOIDEEN, S/O.KUNHIYAMU, PANCHALY HOUSE, AMMINIKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. PANCHALY MOHAMMED @ KUNHU, S/O.KUNHIYAMU, PANCHALY HOUSE, AMMINIKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. 3. PANCHALY HAMZA, S/O.KUNHIYAMU, PANCHALY HOUSE, AMMINIKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. 4. PANCHALY KHALID, S/O.KUNHIYAMU, PANCHALY HOUSE, AMMINIKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. 5. ASSAINU, S/O.KUNHIYAMU, PANCHALY HOUSE, AMMINIKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NILAMBUR SOUTH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. * 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THAZHEKODE VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. *4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. *5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SPECIAL G.P. SRI. RANJITH THAMPAN. * ADDL. R3 TO R5 ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS AS PER ORDER DATED 17.1.2008 IN I.A. 921/08. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ============================= WRIT PETITION NO.35770 OF 2007 ============================= Dated this the 5th day of February 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to direct the respondents not to take any action, in pursuance to Ext.P3 paper report, notifying the land which is covered by Exts.P1 and P2 as private forest under the Kerala Private Forests (vesting and Assignment) Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Petitioner submits that the land in question is covered by Ext.P1 purchase certificate and Ext.P2 proceedings of the Taluk Land Board, Perinthalmanna. According to the petitioners, the land in question is an agricultural land and there is no justification for treating the same as vested forest by the respondents. 2. In view of the controversy that is raised, the respondents were directed to file a statement. In the statement filed, it is stated that this is a part of the vested forest lying in Mannarmala Vested Forest and that although an area of 40 hectres were notified in 2001, survey and demarcation was completed only in 2007. It is stated that on the basis of the survey so conducted, W.P.(C)35770/2007 2 an area having a total additional extent of 51.84 hectres is proposed to be notified as vested forest. According to the respondents, the area of 2.27 acres possessed by the petitioner and 4 others is included in survey number 26 of Thazhekode village and it is a part of the land proposed to be notified as vested forest. It is stated that the land in question being a private forest stands automatically vested to the respondents by Section 3(1) of the Act and notification is procedural formality. 3. From the above, it is obvious that, according to the respondents, the land is a private forest which is vested only as stated. While on the other hand, the petitioner contends that it is an agricultural land covered by Exts.P1 and P2. This, essentially, is a disputed question of fact and cannot be decided in the writ petition. The Act 26 of 1971 itself provides that for settlement of disputes and the Government constituted Tribunals for this purpose in terms of Section 7 of the said Act. A reading of Section 8 of the Act provides that the disputes as to whether (a) any land is a private forest or not; or (b) any private forest or portion thereof has vested in the Government or not, the person who claims that the land is not a private forest or that the private W.P.(C)35770/2007 3 forest has not vested in the Government can raise a dispute which can be the subject matter of a dispute before the Tribunal. In my view, the dispute raised in this writ petition is one which has to be resolved by the Tribunal constituted under Section 26 of the Act. Without prejudice to the contentions of both sides, I close the writ petition with the aforesaid observations and leaving it open to the petitioner to move before the Tribunal constituted under Section 26 of the Act. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE css/