Allowed

Ammukutty and Others v. the State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC25 Mar 2011WP(C)/5208/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, legal heirs of Viswanathan whose land was exempted from vesting under the Kerala Private Forests Act, filed a writ petition alleging non-restoration for over 15 years. The High Court directed the Chief Conservator of Forests and DFO to survey, demarcate, and restore the land within 4 months.

What did the court decide?

The respondents (Chief Conservator of Forests and DFO) were directed to ensure the property is surveyed, demarcated and restored to the petitioners within 4 months.

Ammukutty and Others Vs the State of Kerala and Others — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 5208 of 2011(A)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

1. AMMUKUTTY, W/O.VISWANATHAN, CHATHAMKULAM, KONGAD, PALAKKAD. REP.BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A.M.AJITH, S/O.P.N.MOHANDAS, AJANTHA HOUSE, CHELLIKKAL DESOM, KONGAD AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK.

¶10

2. SUDHAKSHINA, W/O.LATE ASHOKAN, CHATHAMKULAM, KONGAD, PALAKKAD. REP.BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A.M.AJITH, S/O.P.N.MOHANDAS, AJANTHA HOUSE, CHELLIKKAL DESOM, KONGAD AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK.

¶11

3. C.A.ANU, D/O.LATE ASHOKAN, CHATHAMKULAM, KONGAD, PALAKKAD. REP.BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A.M.AJITH, S/O.P.N.MOHANDAS, AJANTHA HOUSE, CHELLIKKAL DESOM, KONGAD AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK.

¶12

4. C.A.BINU, D/O.LATE ASHOKAN,

¶13

CHATHAMKULAM, KONGAD, PALAKKAD. REP.BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A.M.AJITH, S/O.P.N.MOHANDAS, AJANTHA HOUSE, CHELLIKKAL DESOM, KONGAD AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND

¶15

RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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

¶17

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

2. THE SECRETARY TO THE FOREST AND WILD LIFE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

3. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, CALICUT.

¶20

4. D F O, PALAKKAD.

¶21

SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY VARGHESE

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 5208 OF 2011

¶24

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

¶25

Dated this the 25^th day of March, 2011

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Petitioners are the legal heirs of late Viswanathan. Viswanathan had title and ownership over 2.05 acres of land in Sy.No.115/6 and 140/1 of Kongad Amsom of Palakkad Taluk. The said property was treated as a vested forest in terms of the provisions contained under Act 26 of 1971, Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. Viswanathan approached the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad by filing OA No.42/1983 and Tribunal by Ext.P1 order dated 20/5/1986, the land was held to be exempted from vesting.

¶28

Respondents challenged the aforesaid order before this Court by filing MFA No.219/1987. MFA was dismissed by Ext.P2 judgment rendered on 30^th of July, 1996. With the dismissal of the MFA, the proceedings have come to an end. Inspite of it and the lapse of more than 15 years since then, the property has not been restored to the landlords. It is with this grievance, the writ petition is filed.

¶29

The case was adjourned with a direction to the learned

¶30

WPC No. 5208/11

¶31

:2 :

¶32

Government Pleader to obtain instructions. Today, it is submitted that it was on account of certain administrative delays that the restoration could not be effected.

¶33

I am not at all impressed by the justification offered by the learned Government Pleader. There is absolutely no reason to have delayed restoration of the land to the landlords. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents 3 and 4 to ensure that the property in question is surveyed, demarcated and restored to the legal heirs of late Sri.Viswanathan, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 months of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

Petitioners to produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before respondents 3 and 4 for compliance.

¶35

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶36

Ammukutty and Others v. the State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ammukutty and Others v. the State of Kerala and Others

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

Ajin George Vs C.S.Johny

Kuttappan Vs State of Kerala

Shiny P.K. and Another Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Paulraj and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

Jiji John Vs M.G.University and Others

K.Avara Haji Vs the Manager,Vijaya Bank & Another