Allowed

Parvathy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Oct 2011WP(C)/18672/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three petitioners, claiming to be legal heirs, approached the High Court via writ petition to direct respondents to restore scheduled properties. The Forest Tribunal had previously declared the properties not vested as private forest. The Court dismissed the dispute, noting the Tribunal order's finality, and directed the respondents to restore the land to the claimants within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to restore the land covered by the Tribunal order (Ext.P3) to the rightful claimants within four months from receipt of this judgment.

Parvathy Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 18672 of 2011(H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

1. PARVATHY, W/O.LATE RAVEENDRANATHAN, MALAYARKODE HOUSE, CHIMBUKADU (P.O.), KUTHANUR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. RATHISH.R., S/O.LATE RAVEENDRANATHAN, MALAYARKODE HOUSE, CHIMBUKADU (P.O.), KUTHANUR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

3. VIVEK, S/O.LATE RAVEENDRANATHAN, MALAYARKODE HOUSE, CHIMBUKADU (P.O.), KUTHANUR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SRI.R.MANIKANTAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

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

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

2. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND CUSTODIAN OF VESTED VOREST, OFFICE OF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FOREST, EASTERN CIRCLE, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD.

¶16

3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NENMARA DIVISION, NENMARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶17

R1 TO R3 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.R. RAVI

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

...2/-

¶21

WP(C).No. 18672 of 2011(H)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1	: COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF LAXMI.
EXT.P2	: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 1107/1987 OF S.R.O. KUZHALMANNAM.
EXT.P3	: COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A. NO. 184/1990 OF FOREST TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD.
EXT.P4	: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.05.1995 SENT BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5	: COPY OF THE WILL REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO. 8/89 OF S.R.O. KUZHALMANNAM.
EXT.P6	: COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF SUNDARI.
EXT.P7	: COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF RAVEENDRANATHAN.
EXT.P8	: COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIR SHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHASILDAR, ALATHUR.
EXT.P9	: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P10	COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD.
EXT.P11	COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXT.P12	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 6.12.2010 OF THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (REGIONAL NORTH) KOZHIKODE TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P13	COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 17.11.1993.
EXT.P14	COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ALONG WITH THE DRAFT NOTIFICATION.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 18672 OF 2011

¶31

Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2011

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Petitioners claim to be the legal heirs of the applicant in O.A.184/90 on the file of the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad. The said O.A. filed u/s 8 of the Act 26 of 1971 was disposed of by Ext.P3 order of the Tribunal, declaring that the scheduled properties are not vested private forest under the said Act. Despite the order, the land has not been restored so far. It is therefore this writ petition is filed.

¶34

I heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The respondents have no case that the order has not attained finality. So necessarily the land has to be restored in terms of Ext.P3. Therefore I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent to restore the land covered by Ext.P3 to its rightful claimant as expeditiously as possible at any rate within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶35

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶36

ul/-

Parvathy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvathy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nisha Vs the Kerala State Legal Servicesauthority

Lissyamma. L Vs State of Kerala

Mannam Ayurveda Co-Operative Medical Vs Admission Supervisory Committee

Ratheesh Kumar.K.R. Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam

Moideenkutty Hajee Vs Director General, Archaeological Survey

V.v.Joseph and Another Vs State of Kerala & Ors.