Allowed

Ramachandran v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Thalassery

Kerala HC30 Sept 2011WP(C)/21662/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Forest Settlement Officer must conduct an inquiry under Section 8(3) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 regarding the petitioner's property, even though a belated objection was rejected. The court distinguished this inquiry from claims under Section 6.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Forest Settlement Officer to conduct an inquiry under Section 8(3) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 regarding the petitioner's property expeditiously with notice to the petitioner.

Ramachandran Vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Thalassery — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933

¶4

WP(C).No. 21662 of 2011(G)

¶5

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

¶6

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

¶7

RAMACHANDRAN,AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN, THIRUVANGADAN HOUSE, KADALAYI THERU P.O., CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-670 011, REPRESENTED BY P/A. HOLDER SURESH VARMA C.K., S/O.RAVI VARMA,PUTHIYAKOTTARAM,CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------

¶10

REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, (FOREST SETTLEMENT OFFICER, THALASSERY-PIN-670 101.

¶11

SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY VARGHESE

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WPC NO.21662/11

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶16

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1278 OF 2006 DATED 26.6.06. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.1.2008 OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR.

¶17

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 22.5.2009.

¶18

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, PAPPINISSERY DATED 25.5.11.

¶19

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT 20.12.2003. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION ISSUED UNDER SEC.6(1) OF THE KERALA FOREST ACT DATED 12.7.2010.

¶20

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS SHOWING THE EXTENT OF LAND IN SY.NO.214.

¶21

EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.5.11.

¶22

EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.6.11 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21662 OF 2011

¶27

=====================

¶28

Dated this the 30^th day of September, 2011

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

By Ext.P1 document of 26/6/2006, petitioner purchased 2.62 acres of land scheduled to the said document. A portion of the property was acquired for the purpose of National Highway, which is evident from Ext.P2 and the balance is still owned by the petitioner. Ext.P3 is the possession certificate and Ext.P4 is the receipt evidencing payment of tax.

¶31

By Ext.P5 dated 20/12/2003, a notification issued under Section 4 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, the property in question was proposed to be declared as a reserved forest. Subsequently, Forest Settlement Officer issued Ext.P6 notification, in terms of Section 6 of the Act. This notification was issued on 10/8/2010 and includes the property of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 title deed. This proclamation states that it will come into effect from the date of its publication in the gazette and that whoever claims any right over the lands mentioned therein, shall within four months appear or file written statement before the Forest Settlement Officer specifying the nature of such right.

¶32

WPC No. 21662/11

¶33

:2 :

¶34

Petitioner states that he is employed abroad and admits of having not responded to Ext.P6 within the four months period specified therein. He also has a case that he has not given individual notice as contemplated in Section 6(2). Subsequently, he filed Ext.P8 objection dated 26/5/11, which was rejected by the Forest Settlement Officer as per Ext.P9 on the ground that it is belated. It is thereupon the writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P9 and to direct consideration of Ext.P8. Alternate prayer requiring the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner under Section 8(3)of the Forest Act is also sought for.

¶35

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

¶36

The whole controversy in the writ petition depends upon the understanding of Section 8 of the Forest Act, which is extracted below for reference:-

¶37

“ 8. Inquiry by Forest Settlement Officer --(1) The Forest Settlement Officer shall inquire into all claims made under Section 6 recording all statements and the evidence in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure for appealable cases.

¶38

(2) He shall, at the same time, consider and record any objection which the Forest Officer, if any appointed under Section 4 to attend at the inquiry on behalf of the Government, may make to any such claim.

¶39

WPC No. 21662/11

¶40

:3 :

¶41

(3) He may also inquire into and record the existence of any rights referred to in Section 4 and not claimed in answer to the notice issued under Section 6, so far as they are ascertainable from the records of the Government and the evidence of any person likely to be acquired with the same.”

¶42

It is in terms of this Section that the claim of the petitioner will have to be understood. As far as sub section 1 and 2 of Section 8 are concerned, that inquiry is confined to claims made under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, such claims made under Section 6 should be within the four months period specified in Ext.P6. Admittedly, for whatever reason, the petitioner has not made his claim within the time allowed and therefore the rejection of Ext.P9 on the ground that it was belated cannot be faulted.

¶43

However, that is not the end of the matter. A reading of sub section 3 shows that the Forest Settlement Officer is “also” required to inquire into and record the existence of any right referred to in Section 4 and not claimed in answer to the notice issued under Section 6 so far as they are ascertainable from the records of the Government and the evidence of any person likely to be acquainted with the same. The word “also” used in sub section 2 would indicate that the responsibility of conducting

¶44

WPC No. 21662/11

¶45

:4 :

¶46

inquiry is in addition to the obligations of the Forest Settlement Officer under Section 8(1) and 8(2). Further, this sub section also clarifies that such inquiry is in relation to matters which are not claimed in answer to notice issued under Section 6 and ascertainable from the records of the Government and evidence collected from the person. Therefore, even if the objection filed by the petitioner is rejected on the ground that it is belated, that does not absolve the Forest Settlement Officer from his obligation to conduct inquiry in terms of Section 8(3). This has not been conducted in this case and therefore the petitioner is entitled to the alternate relief sought in the writ petition.

¶47

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the Forest Settlement Officer, shall conduct inquiry in terms of Section 8(3) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 as regards the petitioner's property and this shall be done as expeditiously as possible with notice to the petitioner.

¶48

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1^st respondent for compliance.

¶49

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶50

Ramachandran v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Thalassery

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandran v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Thalassery

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

Sister Rosa Vs District Collector

Sasi Adhichan Vs the Tahsildar, Udumbanchola

S.Pradeep Vs Senior Divisional Manager

Asokan Vs Revenue Divisional Officer & Others

Arunkumar.v.a. Vs State of Kerala and Others

Rasheed.N.S. Vs State of Kerala and Others