Disposed

T.Prakasan v. the District Collector,Malappuram & Ors.

Kerala HC23 May 2009WP(C)/11840/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the petitioners failed to plead a specific cause of action for invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 regarding alleged harassment by Forest officials. The judgment directed the Divisional Forest Officer to inquire into the petitioners' title claims and specify the basis for any assertion that the land falls under Forest jurisdiction before further action is taken.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Divisional Forest Officer to inquire into title assertions and specify basis for any forest jurisdiction claim before taking further action. Representation to be filed by petitioners with

T.Prakasan Vs the District Collector,Malappuram… — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 11840 of 2009(Y)

¶6

----------------------------------------PETITIONER(S):

¶7

------------------------

¶8

T. PRAKASAN, S/O. KANARAN, 'PONTHODY MANNAKATH HOUSE', NILAMBUR.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. MR.R.RAJESH KORMATH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

--------------------------1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM.

¶12

2. THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD, TALUK OFFICE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, ERNAD, TALUK OFFICE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERAKAMANNA, VILLAGE OFFICE, PERAKAMANNA, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

5. THE DEPUTY RANGER, KODUMPUZHA STATION, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

6. THE RANGE OFFICER, EDAVANNA, RANGE OFFICE, EDVANNA, EDAVANNA.P.O, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶17

7. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NILAMBUR NORTH DIVISION, NILAMBUR.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶18

8. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

R1 TO R8 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.M.PAULOSE

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2009 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 11848 OF 2009 AND WPC NO. 11872 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Kss

¶22

V.GIRI, J

¶23

....................... W.P.(C)s.11840, 11848 & 11872/2009 ............................................... Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2009

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Almost identical contentions have been taken up in these writ petitions. The issues raised are also common. Therefore, I heard these writ petitions together and the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. Reference will be made to Writ Petition No.11840/2009 as a leading case.

¶26

Petitioner claims to be the title holder of 2 acres and 60 cents of land in R.S.No.60 of Perakamanna Village in Malappuram District. According to him, the said property was purchased by him under a document No.2410/1985 from one Muhammed Shareef. He claims title to the property on the basis of the purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal, Manjeri, in Suo Motu proceedings. Petitioner further submits that after the assignment, a purchase certificate was issued in his favour, Ext.P2, by the Land Tribunal, Manjeri, in Suo Motu

¶27

W.P.(C).11840/2009 & Connected Cases

¶28

¶29

proceedings No.239/88. Though it is stated that the State has preferred an appeal against it, the same was withdrawn as evidenced by Ext.P3. It is contended that the petitioner has paid the basic tax for the property. The same is cultivated with plantain, turmeric, vegetables, cashew etc. Reference is made in the writ petition to the steps taken by the Forest officials on more than one occasion earlier, seeking to restrain the petitioner from enjoying the property. As a matter of illustration, it is stated that by Ext.P4 notice, petitioner was informed that he is restrained from encroaching into the property earmarked for social forestry and doing any acts therein. Similar notice was issued as Ext.P5 intimating the petitioner that he is an accused in O.R.5/08 alleging that he had encroached into the property lying within the jurisdiction of Kodumpuzha Forest Station and planted rubber saplings. Present writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:-

¶30

W.P.(C).11840/2009 & Connected Cases 3

¶31

(i). Declare that the respondents are not entitled under law to proceed against the property scheduled to Ext.P2 as forest lands or Government lands.

¶32

(ii). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the fourth respondent Village Officer to accept basic tax for the property scheduled to Ext.P2.

¶33

Almost similar contentions have been taken up in the other writ petitions also.

¶34

I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior Government Pleader.

¶35

Though the Forest Department as such may not be bound by the certificate issued by the competent Land Tribunal, where title is asserted by

¶36

¶37

W.P.(C).11840/2009 & Connected Cases

¶38

a person in possession of the property, the Forest officials will have to demonstrate some material in repudiation of the said title before they proceed to take any action under the Kerala Forests (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003. According to the petitioner, though several representations have been filed before the Forest Officials not only asserting his title, harassment by the Forest officials, according to him, continues. He is not in a position to approach the Civil Court, it is contended, because there is an ouster of jurisdiction under the Forest Act and the Kerala Forests (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Land) Act, 2003. He cannot approach the Tribunal because an application filed at this stage, can be thrown out as belated, it is contended.

¶39

6. Learned Government Pleader submits that the

¶40

Forest officials would proceed only on the basis of a specific assertion as regards the nature of the

¶41

W.P.(C).11840/2009 & Connected Cases 5

¶42

property. If the property is either included in the list of reserved forest or if it is otherwise liable to be treated as ecologically fragile, then, Forest officials are entitled to take such action as are warranted and permissible under the relevant statute.

¶43

Having heard learned counsel on both sides and having perused the averments in the writ petitions, I am of the view that the petitioners have not been able to plead a specific cause of action in these writ petitions. They allege what they call as sporadic acts of harassment of the Forest officials. This, according to me, is not sufficient for this Court to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage. But it is necessary for the Forest Officials to specifically intimate the petitioner, the basis of which they take any action against the petitioner or his property and in these circumstances, I think it is appropriate that the concerned Divisional Forest Officer considers

¶44

W.P.(C).11840/2009 & Connected Cases

¶45

¶46

the case of each one of the petitioners separately.

¶47

In the result, writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-

¶48

(i). Petitioners may file a detailed representation before the concerned jurisdictional Divisional Forest Officer, the seventh respondent, in all the writ petitions, detailing and affirming their title to the property and any specific acts of excess committed by the Forest Officials, as contended by them. Representations shall be filed within one month from today.

¶49

(ii). The concerned Divisional Forest officer shall cause an enquiry and he shall give a reply to the petitioners with regard to the allegations and if it is asserted that any portion of the land belonging to the petitioners comes within the jurisdiction of the Forest officials, then, basis for such assertion shall be specified in the

¶50

W.P.(C).11840/2009 & Connected Cases

¶51

¶52

reply to be so given to the petitioners. If any such assertion by the Forest officials are detrimental to the interest of the petitioners, they are entitled to approach the competent Tribunal under the Kerala Forests (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Land) Act, 2003, az and cause of action for any application filed by them before the Tribunal shall arise with effect from the date on which such orders are communicated to the petitioners. Further steps by the Forest officials in relation to the properties of the petitioners shall be taken only after such orders are passed by the Divisional Forest Officer.

¶53

V.GIRI, Judge

¶54

mrcs

T.Prakasan v. the District Collector,Malappuram & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Prakasan v. the District Collector,Malappuram & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rev.Fr.George Rebeiro Vs State of Kerala and Ors.

B.Ramdas Associates Vs Chief Postmaster General

M. Mohanan Vs Direecgtor, Airport Authority of India

Augustine.P.J. Vs District Collector

Abdul Kasim Vs the Dist.Collector,Malappuram & Others

N.M.Thomas Vs North Malabar Gramin Bank