Dismissed

K.B. Antony v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 May 2016OP(FT)/3/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court considered a petition challenging an order that declined an interim injunction in land dispute involving ecologically fragile land. The court found no manifest error, dismissed the challenge, and directed the Tribunal to decide expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Challenge against the Tribunal's order dismissed; Tribunal directed to dispose of main application within four months.

K.B. Antony Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2016/3RD JYAISHTA, 1938

¶7

OP(FT).No. 3 of 2016 (R)

¶8

(AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.No.32/2013 in O.A.No.29/2012 OF THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD)

¶9

PETITIONER(S):

¶10

K.B. ANTONY S/O. BERNAD, VALUTHALAYIL, THAMARAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BALASURBAMANIAN, S/O. THANKAPPAN, PARASSERIKALAM, KIZHAKKANCHERRY, ALATHUR PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.BABU KUMAR SRI.N.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001

¶14

CUSTODIAN (ECOLOGICALLY FRAGILE LAND ) AND PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (EXTW) STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014

¶15

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI K.C. VINCENT BY SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY, SPL. GOVT. PLEADER FOR FOREST

¶16

THIS OP (FOREST TRIBUNAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

OP(FT).No. 3 of 2016 (R)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OA.A.NO.29/2012 FILED BEFORE THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD DATED 30.11.2012.
EXT.P2	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE I.A.32/13 IN O.A.29/12 FILED BEFORE THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD DATED 26.07.2013.
EXT.P3	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN I.A.No.32/13 in O.A.No.29/12 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 2.12.2013.
EXT.P4	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 31.03.2015.
EXT.P5	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.No.32/13 IN O.A. 29/12 OF FOREST TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD DATED 30.09.2015.
EXT.P6	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.4/09 OF FOREST TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD DATED 13.05.2015.
EXT.P7	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)No.20954/15 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 20.07.2015
EXT.P8	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)3994/15 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 27.02.2015.
EXT.P9	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.No.34/2008 IN O.A.No.45/2008 OF THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD DATED 08.04.2009
EXT.P10	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAM DAILY DATED 11.02.2016

¶21

/TRUE COPY/

¶22

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶23

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON &

¶24

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶25

O.P.(FT)No.3 of 2016

¶26

Dated this the 24^th May, 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶29

The petitioner has filed this original petition seeking an order to set aside Ext.P5 order passed by the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Tribunal, Palakkad in I.A.No.32 of 2013 in O.A.No.29 of 2012, by which the prayer for interim injunction sought for, restraining the respondents from preventing the petitioners from taking usufructs from the property which is the subject matter of O.A.No.29 of 2012, pending disposal of that O.A., was declined.

¶30

Going by the pleadings in the Original Petition, the petitioner claims ownership of 2.47 acres of land in Sy.No.235/A/1/2 of Kottopadam Village, Mannarkkad Taluk, which according to the petitioner is a pucca rubber plantation.

¶31

The said property was notified as ecologically fragile land vide a notification issued in the year 2001. In 2012, the petitioner

¶32

¶33

O.P.(FT)No.3 of 2016

¶34

approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.29 of 2012 mainly seeking for a declaration that the property in question is not one coming under the purview of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands)Act, 2003.

¶35

During the pendency of the said O.A., I.A.No.32 of 2013 was filed for interim relief, which was declined by Ext.P5 order dated 19.10.2015. The operative portion of which reads as follows:

¶36

“O.A. itself is filed to declare that the application schedule property is not ecologically fragile land as defined in Act 21/2005 and for restoration of possession, if the respondents had taken possession of the property since the property was notified as ecologically fragile land. So as per Section 3 of the Act, the ownership and even possession of the property stood transferred to and vested in the Government. So the petitioner can not claim possession over the property unless it is found by this Tribunal that the property is not ecologically fragile land. Sub-section 3 of Section 10 of the Act 21/2005 prescribes that it was after decision of the Tribunal and if any appeal is filed before the Hon'ble High Court from that order, after the disposal of the appeal only the petitioner is entitled to get restored possession of the property notified as ecologically fragile land. So as contended by the Special Government Pleader, an interim injunction of this nature cannot be granted as it would amount to violation of the statutory mandate. At this stage, it cannot be found that the scheduled property is not ecologically fragile land. So the prayer for

¶37

O.P.(FT)No.3 of 2016

¶38

¶39

interim injunction sought for by the petitioner cannot be allowed. The point is found against the petitioner.”

¶40

It is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, the petitioner is before this court

¶41

in this Original Petition.

¶42

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶43

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Tribunal is having ample power to grant interim order in exercise of its powers under Section 12 of the Act and as such the Tribunal went wrong in declining the interim order sought for. The learned counsel has also advanced arguments touching the merits of the Original Application now pending before the Tribunal.

¶44

Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend that, in the facts and circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was fully justified in declining the interim relief sought for, for the reasons stated in Ext.P5 order. The learned Special Government Pleader would point out that, though the

¶45

¶46

O.P.(FT)No.3 of 2016

¶47

property in question was notified in the year 2001, the Original Application was filed before the Tribunal only in the year 2012. The respondents have already filed their statement in O.A.No.29 of 2012 and the Advocate Commissioner, who inspected the property has also filed report, to which the respondents have filed their objections. Now the Original Application stands listed to 03.06.2016 for the applicant's evidence.

¶48

The law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or Tribunal and the jurisdiction of the High Court is only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or Tribunal has committed manifest error, as the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or Tribunal is in direct conflict with the settled principle of law.

¶49

After considering the rival contentions, we are of the view

¶50

¶51

O.P.(FT)No.3 of 2016

¶52

that the petitioner has not made out a case warranting interference of Ext.P5 order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P5 order is neither perverse nor patently unreasonable. Accordingly, the challenge made against Ext.P5 order fails.

¶53

Since the Original Application now stands posted to 03.06.2016 for the applicant's evidence, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this Original Petition, by directing the Tribunal to take a final decision in Ext.P1, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four months from 03.06.2016. The contentions raised by both sides are left open to be agitated before the Tribunal.

¶54

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶55

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶56

K.B. Antony v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.B. Antony 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs P.J.Moideen

N.Rajamohanan Vs Union of India

Union of India Vs Ummer Koya

B. Sasidharan Nair Vs Union of India

K.Achuthan Nair Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs K. Janardhanan Thampi