Disposed

P.Narayanan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jun 2014WP(C)/2810/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a Writ Petition concerning land exempted from vesting. The Court held that the subsequent purchaser is entitled to possession but must first furnish an indemnity bond to the Forest Department to cover any future claims by deceased owners' heirs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to submit indemnity bond; Respondents to restore possession within one month of bond execution.

P.Narayanan Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/19TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 2810 of 2013 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. P.NARAYANAN, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, PARAKKOTTIL VEEDU, ANGADIPURAM P.O, PERINTHALMANNA.

¶8

2. P.AJAY, S/O.NARAYANAN, PARAKKOTTIL VEEDU, ANGADIPURAM P.O, PERINTHALMANNA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.

¶12

2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PALAKKAD 678001.

¶13

3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (EC), PALAKKAD 678 001.

¶14

*** ADDL.R4 TO R7 IMPLEADED**

¶15

4. SADANANDAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN VAIDYAN, NADUKALATHIL, NENJAPPA NAGAR, MANNARKKAD P.O.

¶16

5. ANANTHA VALLY, AGED 58 YEARS, D/O.RAGHAVAN VAIDYAN, NADUKALATHIL, NENJAPPA NAGAR, MANNARKKAD P.O.

¶17

6. CHINMAYANANDAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN VAIDYAN, NADUKALATHIL, NENJAPPA NAGAR, MANNARKKAD P.O.

....2/-

..2..

WP(C).No. 2810 of 2013 (A)

¶22

7. DR.P.G.SHAJI, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, EAST HILL ROAD, 1/3816, NANDANAM HOUSE, ERANJIPALAM P.O.

¶23

ADDL.R4 TO R7 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.20/3/13 IN IA.NO.4179/2013.

¶24

R1-3 BY SRI.M.A.THOMASKUTTY, SPL. GOVT. PLEADER FOR FOREST ADDL 5 BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

¶25

SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

WP(C).No. 2810 of 2013 (A)

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶31

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

¶32

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4549 OF 2003 DATED 26/12/2003.

¶33

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 30/7/1977 PASSED BY THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, PALGHAT IN O.A NOS.976/1973, 977/1974, 978/1974 AND 979/1974

¶34

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION G.O.(P) NO.54/2012/F WL.D. DATED 30/04/2012.

¶35

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE 19/11/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶36

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.T-8781/2012 DATED 28/12/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶37

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No. 2810 of 2013

¶43

Dated this the 9^th day of June 2014

¶44

J U D G M E N T

¶45

Petitioners have purchased 11 Acres and 20 cents of property in Survey No.157/12-A1 and 157/12-A2 in Karimba-II village as per Ext.P1 sale deed bearing No.4539/2003 of the Kadambazhipuram Sub Registry office.

¶46

In fact, a portion of the above property was the subject matter of a pending issue with reference to the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 which resulted in the previous owner filing O.A.No.979 of 1974 before the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad. By Ext.P2 judgment, the said lands had been exempted from the provisions of vesting. After the judgment, the petitioner had approached the Forest Department for restoring possession of land in his favour on account of the fact that he is the purchaser of the property. The Department, however, took a view that the land could be restored only to the original

¶47

W.P.C.No.2810/2013

¶48

¶49

owners who sought for exemption. All the previous land owners expired in the meantime and their legal heirs are parties to this writ petition as additional respondents 4 to 7. They have not come forward with any objection to restore possession of the property in favour of the petitioners.

¶50

Though notice was issued to additional respondents, there is no appearance on their behalf as well. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that since the property is already exempted from vesting, necessarily the subsequent owner of the property is entitled to get restoration of possession. If at all any dispute is raised by the legal heirs of the deceased/previous owner, definitely the petitioners will be answerable at that stage when such disputes are raised. But, as far as the Forest Department is concerned, they can give possession of the property to the petitioners on them submitting necessary indemnity agreeing and undertaking to make good any loss that the Forest Department may suffer, if any dispute is raised by any other person with reference to the claim in respect of the land in question.

¶51

W.P.C.No.2810/2013

¶52

¶53

Under such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as under:

¶54

i) The petitioner shall submit an indemnity bond in favour of the 2^nd respondent agreeing and undertaking to make good any loss or damage that the Forest Department may suffer on account of the department restoring possession of the property covered by Ext.P2 judgment which originally belongs to late Smt.Janaki in the event of any claim being made by her legal heirs.

¶55

ii) On providing such an indemnity bond, respondents 2 and 3 shall make necessary arrangements to restore possession of the land in question in favour of the petitioners.

¶56

Iii) This may be done within a period of one month from the date of execution of the indemnity bond, as stated above.

¶57

(sd/-)

¶58

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶59

jsr

¶60

W.P.C.No.2810/2013 4

P.Narayanan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Narayanan 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

A. Ansari Vs District Collector

Ali Muhammed Vs the District Geologist

Mohammed Ansar Vs the District Collector

P.M.Chackochan Vs E.K.Bharath Bhushan

Aswin Vs District Collector

Rukkammal Vs the Village Officer