Allowed

Murukan v. Chief Conservator of Forest & Custodian of Vested Forest

Kerala HC18 Oct 2013WP(C)/22257/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner approached High Court under Writ Petition (Civil) No. 22257 of 2013 because restoration of his land, previously declared non-vested by Forest Tribunal, was delayed. The Court directed the respondents to complete the restoration procedure within six months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to complete steps/procedure for redressal of the petitioner's grievance, to be done at earliest, at any rate within six months.

Murukan Vs Chief Conservator of Forest… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/26TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 22257 of 2013 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MURUKAN, S/O. CHAMI, PEZHUMKODE HOUSE, NOCHUR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.BABU KUMAR, SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FOREST, EASTERN CIRCLE, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD-678 002.

¶11

2. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NENMARA, PALAKKAD-678 508.

¶12

3. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, ALATHUR RANGE, ANAKKAPARA, PALAKKAD-686 633.

¶13

4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FOREST MINI SURVEY, KOZHIKODE-6.

¶14

BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FOREST) SRI. M.A. THOMASKUTTY.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Prv.

¶17

W.P.(C).NO.22257/2013-F:

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXHIBIT P1:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.NO.9/2002 PASSED BY THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE DATED 30.9.2003.
EXHIBIT P2:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.7.2012.
EXHIBIT P3:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SKETCH APPROVED BY THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF SURVEY DATED 28.7.2009.
EXHIBIT P4:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FAIR AREA LIST APPROVED BY THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF SURVEY DATED 28.7.2009.
EXHIBIT P5:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESTORATION PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.12.2005.
EXHIBIT P6:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.6.2004.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶26

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 22257 of 2013

¶28

¶29

Dated, this the 18^th day of October, 2013

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The property having an extent of 36 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 213/83 was the subject matter in O.A. No. 9/2002 filed before the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikkode, wherein Ext. P1 order dated 30.09.2003 came to be passed, holding that land in question cannot be termed as a vested forest under Section 3 (1) of the Act 26/1971. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in spite of filing Ext. P2 representation for effecting restoration of the property in the light of Ext. P1 order, the same is still to be considered, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.

¶32

The learned counsel counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is finding it very difficult to enjoy the property in an effective manner, because of the lapses on the part of the respondent, which hence is sought to be interfered by this Court.

¶33

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, various procedural formalities have to be completed and that steps are being taken for effecting restoration of the property. Paragraph 7 of the statement filed by the 3^rd

¶34

W.P.(C) No. 22257 of 2013

¶35

: 2 :

¶36

respondent is relevant, which hence is extracted below :

¶37

“It is submitted that the restoration proposal will be forwarded to the Divisional Forest Officer, Nemmara without any further delay. After scrutiny at the Division level, the proposal will have to be forwarded to the Custodian of Vested Forests and Chief Conservator of Forests. After verification in the office of the Custodian, the proposal has to be submitted to the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Northern Region for onward transmission to the Government. The Government has to approve the restoration proposal. Only after obtaining Government sanction, the land can be formally restored to the applicant.

¶38

After hearing both the sides and also considering the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to complete the steps/procedure for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner, which shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within 'six months' from today.

¶39

The Writ Petition stands allowed to the said extent. No cost.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶42

kmd

Murukan v. Chief Conservator of Forest & Custodian of Vested Forest

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murukan v. Chief Conservator of Forest & Custodian of Vested Forest

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

Janardhanan Chettiar Vs a.M.Ashraf

Tharangani Arts & Sports Club Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Gandhi Nagar

K.K.Chacko Vs the State of Kerala

K.Dasan Vs Inspector General (Registration)

Prashob Sugathan Vs the Passport Officer

M.R.Bhaskaran Vaidyar Vs State of Kerala