Allowed

Ramesan & Another v. State of Kerala & Others

Kerala HC10 Nov 2016WP(C)/20861/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order withdrawing a No Objection Certificate issued in 1998, which was required for forest clearance. The court held that the order undermined prior Land Tribunal and Forest Tribunal decisions and was quashed, noting that the later notification under the EFL Act provides separate statutory relief.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P10 order of the second respondent regarding the withdrawal of the No Objection Certificate is quashed.

Ramesan & Another Vs State of Kerala & Others — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/19TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 20861 of 2007 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. RAMESAN, S/O. PAZHANANKUTTY, KOTHODUKALAM, VEMBALLOOR P.O., THENKURUSSY-II VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

2. M/S. SAKTHI AGGREGATES PVT. LTD., VEMBALLOOR, THEMKURUSSY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS DIRECTOR, SHRI. RAJESH KUMAR V.R., S/O. RAVEENDRAN PILLAI.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN, SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

¶12

FOREST & WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NEMMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶14

3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶15

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD.

¶16

5. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶17

BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER (FOREST) SRI.SANDESH RAJA.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

rs.

¶20

WP(C).No. 20861 of 2007 (H)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶23

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/11/1997 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.13/8510/97 DATED 01/01/1998.

¶25

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.SM-467/97 DATED 03/02/1998 ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KOYALMANNAM.

¶26

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KOYALMANNAM.

¶27

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THENKURISSI-II DATED 26/10/1998.

¶28

EXT.P6 COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1461/2000 OF SRO, KOYALMANNAM. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1462/2000 OF SRI, KOYALMANNAM. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN CMP. NO.52459/2000 DATED 03/11/2000 IN O.P. NO.30863/2000 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶29

EXT.P9 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OA NO.30/2005 DATED 31/10/2006. EXT.P10 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO.C2-5614/2004 DATED 30/05/2007.

¶30

EXT.P11 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.C2-5614/2004 DATED 30/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶31

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶32

ANNEXURE R3A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.EFL6-121 DATED 30/11/2009.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

¶37

W.P.(C)No.20861 of 2007 H

¶38

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2016

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The petitioners are impugning Exhibit P10 order of the second respondent Divisional Forest Officer, as per which, Exhibit P2 No Objection Certificate (NOC), that was issued by the same Officer as early as on 01.01.1998, is sought to be withdrawn.

¶41

The facts of the case would reveal that the first petitioner owned certain extents of land in Alathur Taluk, which was sold by him to a certain Haridasan, who in turn sold it to the second petitioner. It is also seen that before he sold the property, he had approached the second respondent for issuance of an NOC in respect of his property to enable him to produce the same before the Land Tribunal for getting a purchase certificate. It is seen that such an NOC, namely Exhibit P2, was then issued by the second respondent. On the strength of

¶42

WPC 20861/07

¶43

¶44

Exhibit P2 NOC, the first petitioner applied for and obtained Exhibit P3 purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal as per proceedings No.SM-467/97 dated 03.02.1998. The second petitioner, after purchasing the property as above, approached the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode claiming exemption from the purview of Section 3(2) of the Kerala Forest (Vesting & Assignment) Act ('the Act' for brevity), by filing an Original Application, numbered as O.A.No.30/2005. The Forest Tribunal, by Exhibit P9 award dated 31.10.2016, allowed the application declaring that the properties of the second petitioner are not private forest within the definition of the Act. While so, Exhibit P10 order has been issued by the second respondent, as per which, Exhibit P2 NOC has been sought to be withdrawn. The petitioners claim that this is an attempt to erode the substratum of the orders issued by the Land Tribunal and Forest Tribunal.

¶45

¶46

WPC 20861/07

¶47

I have heard Sri.Mohanakannan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Sandesh Raja, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forests).

¶48

The learned Special Government Pleader has placed on record a statement on behalf of the third respondent. He has stated that the property of the petitioner has been notified as ecologically fragile land under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 ('the EFL Act for brevity). The said notification is appended to the writ petition as Exhibit R3(a). The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that Exhibit R3(a) has been issued as late as on 30.11.2009.

¶49

In any event of the matter, I do not approve Exhibit P10 order, since I concur with the submissions of the petitioner that it appears to be an attempt to rob the substratum of the orders of the Land Tribunal and the Forest Tribunal. However, I also notice that a notification

¶50

WPC 20861/07 4

¶51

has been issued under the EFL Act and this is not a matter that can be adjudicated in this case. The petitioners have their statutory remedies against that notification under the provisions of the EFL Act.

¶52

Therefore, I allow the writ petition quashing Exhibit P10 order of the second respondent. Needless to say, Government is at liberty to proceed, if they so require under the provisions of the EFL Act, notwithstanding anything said herein.

¶53

The learned Special Government Pleader states that the properties of the petitioners have already been taken over by the Government under the notification. This is opposed by the petitioner referring to a Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A.No.62/2010 dated 16.12.2014, wherein this Court has noticed that the petitioner was continuing in possession of the properties. Whatever be the contentions regarding possession, the fact remains that a notification has been issued under the

¶54

WPC 20861/07 5

¶55

EFL Act. It is, therefore, up to the petitioners to invoke the remedies that are available to them under the State against the notification and also the consequential action taken by the Government, if any.

¶56

Devan Ramachandran, Judge

¶57

tkv

Ramesan & Another v. State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesan & Another v. State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.P.Augustine Vs State

P.Vijayakumar Vs Pathanamthitta Municipality

Cochin Cadalas Private Ltd. Vs Chief Engineer

Sophia A.S Vs Union of India

Jabir V.S. Vs the Deputy General Manager (Hr)

B.v.Chandran Vs State of Kerala