Case: State of Kerala &amp; Others Vs. Yusuff &amp; Others

2. We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals.3. The impugned judgment and order read asin W.A. No. 198 of 2000The learned Government Pleader submits that what the Government requires is only some time to demarcate the land in question for the purpose of restoration to the Respondents. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of, as suggested by the Government Pleader, granting six months time from today to complete the demarcation and to hand over the land in question.""Order in R.P. No. 254 of 2004Government Pleader submits that the Government is resorting to other remedies.Review Petition is closed.The dispute in these appeals essentially center around to the forest land measuring around 4.0755 Hectares in Sy. No 2019/Part, situated in Pattassery (Agaly) Village, Mannaghat Taluk, District Palakkad in the State of Kerala. It is between the State (Forest Department) on the one hand and the private individuals(respondents) on the other hand. The respondents assert their rights on the said land to the exclusion of the State on variety of grounds whereas the State equally disputes the respondents claim and assert their rights.5. The Forest Tribunal, Manjeri, by order dated 03.10.1979, in O.A. No. 97 of 1978 first decided the dispute. It was then carried in writ jurisdiction to the High Court in O.P. No 1470 of 1991 and was decided on merits and then was taken in appeal being W.A. No 198 of 2000 before the Division Bench which resulted in passing the impugned judgment giving rise to filing of C.A. No. 2099 of 2008 by the State. Against the judgment in W.A. No. 198 of 2000, Review Petition No. 254 of 2004 was filed before the High Court, which was closed by order dated 11.06.2004. Against the said order, C.A. No. 2100 of 2008 is filed.

Reasoning:
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeals in part and while setting aside the impugned judgment remand the case to the High Court (Division Bench) to decide the writ appeal afresh on merits.13. In our view, having regard to the nature of controversy involved in these appeals, the contentious issues decided by the Tribunal and the Single Judge of the High Court, the implications of various Forest and Revenue laws governing the issues and further keeping in view the Commissioners report obtained by the Division Bench pursuant to the order dated 29.10.2000 in relation to the disputed land in question, the writ appeal deserves to be heard on merits.14. So far as the issue with regard to the statement of the appellants counsel made before the High Court is concerned, we find from the record of the case that it was not called for inasmuch as the same appears to have been made under some misconception. Be that as it may, in the light of what we have observed supra, it is not necessary to go into this question any more.15. In our view, the remand of the appeal to the High Court for its decision on merits would not, in any way, cause prejudice to the respondents because they would also be heard in appeal.We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy involved in these appeals and, therefore, the writ appeal would be decided by the High Court uninfluenced by any of our observations.