The High Court of Kerala dismissed a review petition filed by a writ petitioner challenging a directive to identify land from where a tree was uprooted, holding that the original judgment had already protected the petitioner's interest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2016/11TH PHALGUNA, 1937
RP.No. 163 of 2016 (W)
JUDGMENT DATED 12-02-2016 IN WP(C) 36189/2015
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/WRIT PETITIONER:
---------------------------------------------------------------
LATHA BALAN, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.BALAN, KOCHU VAZHAYIL HOUSE, KOTTAMONPARA P.O., SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 667.
BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO FOREST & WILD LIFE (B) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, RANNI, PIN-689 672.
3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, RANNI, PIN-689 672.
4. THE THAHASILDAR, RANNI, PIN-698 672.
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SEETHATHODE, PIN-689 667.
6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHITTUR, PIN-689 663.
7. REGHUNATHAN,
R1-R6 BY SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY, SPL. GOVT. PLEADER FOR FOREST R7 BY ADVS. SRI.P.HARIDAS
SMT.S.SIKKY SRI.P.C.SHIJIN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
***************************************************************************** R.P.No.163 of 2016
in
ORDER
The petitioner submits that in the light of Ext.P14, this
Court ought not to have directed the Taluk Surveyor to identify
the land as there is already a finding in Ext.P14 report that the
tree was removed from non-forest land. In fact, the issue in
the writ petition was about the auction conducted by the Forest Department of an uprooted tree. In order to resolve the issues,
this Court directed the Taluk Surveyor to identify the land from
where the tree was uprooted. The petitioner’s interest in fact
was protected in the judgment. This Court found that if the
tree was in the land of the petitioner, the Forest Department
shall release the amount deposited by the 7th respondent to the
petitioner.
R.P.No.163 of 2016 in
W.P.(C) No.36189 of 2015 2
In that view of the matter, this Court finds that there is no
scope for reviewing the judgment. Accordingly, the review
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
ln
Latha Balan
The State of Kerala
Reghunathan
A.Muhammed Mustaque
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
