Dismissed

J.B.J.Plantations v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Mar 2016WA/392/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in this appeal dismissed a writ appeal challenging a Single Judge order that directed the appellants to approach the Tribunal under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, for exemption regarding notified land as private forest. The Court found the Single Judge correctly applied the statutory code.

What did the court decide?

One month's time granted for preferring necessary application before the Tribunal under Section 8(1) of the Act.

J.B.J.Plantations Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/18TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WA.No. 392 of 2016 () IN WP(C).158/2015

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 158/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 4/1/2016 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

J.B.J.PLANTATIONS (P) LTD. KALLAMALA VILLAG, E AGALI, MANNARKKAD TALUK PALAKKAD (REGISTERED OFFICE-JBJ PLANTATIONS (P) LTD. G-C, ALLIANCE APARTMENT, MARINE DRIVE ERNAKULAM, PIN:682031) REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR VIVISH PHILIP.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695001.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678001.

¶12

3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD PIN:678581.

¶13

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, KALLAMALA VILLAG, E MANNARKKAD PALAKKAD, PIN:678581.

¶14

5. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, EASTERN CIRCLE, OLAVAKODE, PALAKKAD-678001.

¶15

6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY PALAKKAD-678581.

¶16

WA NO. 392/16

¶17

-2-

¶18

7. THE DIVISIONAL SURVEYOR OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MANNARKKAD PALAKKAD, PIN:678581.

¶19

BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J. &

¶22

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

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

W.A. No. 392 of 2016

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

Dated this, the 8^th day of March, 2016

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Shaffique, J.

¶29

Petitioner in WP(C) No. 158/2015 is the appellant, who challenges judgment dated 4/1/2015. The writ petition has been filed inter alia contending that though notification had been issued by the Forest Department with reference to the 100 hectares of land coming under the different survey numbers, later on an inspection conducted by the District Collector in the presence of all forest officials, it was found that there had been some mistake in the notification and necessary report had been given in terms of Ext.P7 to rectify the said mistake.

¶30

Petitioner, being a Private Limited Company, claimed ownership in respect of 257 Acres in Re.Sy.No.1841/pt of Kallamala Village (formerly Attappady I Village). The property having an extent of 1501 Acres in Mankada II Village and 257 Acres in Re.Sy.No.1841/pt of Attappady I Village originally

¶31

W.A.No.392/16

¶32

belonged to one Kumaran Nair. The Taluk Land Board in a ceiling case directed surrender of 2067.61 Acres. The legal heirs of one Kumaran Nair filed CRP No.1654/91 and certain assignees filed CRP No.1697/91 before this Court. Civil Revision petitions were allowed by this Court by common order dated 11/9/1995. The matter was taken up before the Supreme Court and the Civil Appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court. It is contended that in the judgment of the Supreme Court in CA Nos.321/98, 322/98 and 324/98, it was clearly observed that contention regarding vesting of the land in the State as private forest cannot be accepted. On this basis, it is contended that the judgment of the Supreme Court read along with Ext.P7 order of the District Collector clearly indicates that the land of the petitioner does not form part of vested forest in terms of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the '1971 Act'). Though the petitioner sought for payment of land tax for the property, the same was not permitted and accordingly the petitioner had approached this Court seeking the following

W.A.No.392/16

-:3:-

reliefs:

“ (i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to take follow up action pursuant to Ext.P7 in the light of Ext.P2 and P5 judgment and separately survey and demarcate the remaining 110.24 acres from out of the 257 acres exempted by Ext.P2 from Sy.No.1841/pt (Re.Survey No.605/1) of Kallamala Village (Formerly Agali Village) Mannarkkad Taluk and hand over possession to the petitioner company forthwith.

¶37

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 and 4 to accept land tax and plantation tax for the 110.24 acres and issue possession certificate for the area.

¶38

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 6 and 7 to conduct the survey and demarcation of the petitioner's 110.24 acres identified by them during the enquiry for Ext.P7 and prepare and hand over the sketch to the petitioner. (iv) direct the 5^th respondent to issue no objection certificate to the petitioner in respect of the 257 Acres in terms of Ext.P2 judgment and to refrain from interfering in any manner with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the said 257 Acres.”

¶39

It was inter alia contended on behalf of the

¶40

W.A.No.392/16

¶41

-:4:-

¶42

respondents that the property claimed by the petitioner is 'private forest' as has been notified in terms with 1971 Act. It is contended that the orders passed in the Civil Revision Petition or by the Supreme Court cannot have any bearing on the vesting of the land and the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Tribunal constituted under the 1971 Act.

¶43

Learned Single Judge having considered the matter observed that the decision of the Supreme Court was with reference to considering the question regarding the ceiling area of the owner of the land and the position of the land as on 01/4/1964, which cannot have any bearing on the notification issued by the Forest Department. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the Tribunal under Section 8(1) of the Act within a period of two months and direction was issued to the Tribunal to dispose of the same within a further period of eight months.

¶44

Impugning the aforesaid judgment, learned senior

¶45

counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant places reliance on

¶46

W.A.No.392/16

¶47

-:5:-

¶48

Ext.P7 order. It is stated that a joint verification has already been conducted and when it was found that there was mistake in the notification, it was incumbent on the part of the Forest Department to have rectified the said mistake. It is apparent from the pleadings and materials placed on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Single Judge had not committed any error in relegating the petitioner to approach the Tribunal under the 1971 Act. In fact, 1971 Act is a complete code in itself as far as private forests are concerned and any person claiming that the land notified is not a private forest as on the stipulated date, the remedy is to seek exemption by approaching the Tribunal by invoking Section 8 of the Act. Even in a case where a claim is made by the Forest Department that the holding of a person is forming part of forest, the remedy is to approach the Tribunal.

¶49

Therefore, when appropriate forums have been provided for considering the factual circumstances involved in each case where a claim is made under the 1971 Act, the remedy

¶50

W.A.No.392/16

¶51

-:6:-

¶52

of the holder/owner of the land is to seek exemption by approaching the Tribunal.

¶53

Under such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and accordingly this writ appeal is dismissed. However, one month's time from today is granted for preferring necessary application before the Tribunal.

¶54

Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶57

Rp8/3/2016

¶58

//True Copy//

¶59

PS to Judge

J.B.J.Plantations v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.B.J.Plantations 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

G.S.Ajayakumar Vs the Commissioner

Sulaikha Vs Geologist

P.X.James Vs State of Kerala

Thaikkakath Fareedha Vs State of Kerala

Anitha Thankachi Vs Kpsc

C.Remadevi Vs Secretary to Government