Disposed

C.K.Sasankan v. Divisional Forest Officer

Kerala HC19 Sept 2016WP(C)/6722/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Custodian (Ecologically Fragile Lands) to consider an application submitted by the petitioner for exclusion of his cardamom estate from forest vesting provisions, after requiring the petitioner to furnish requested clarifications within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Custodian to consider the petitioner's application for exclusion after receipt of necessary clarifications within two weeks.

C.K.Sasankan Vs Divisional Forest Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/28TH BHADRA, 19382016

¶5

WP(C).No. 6722 of 2006 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

C.K. SASANKAN, S/O. LATE KUNJUKUTTAN, CHARANGATTU, KANICHUKULANGARA P.O., ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.

¶8

BY SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOZHIKODE.

¶11

2. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILD LIFE (K) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED

¶14

4. THE CUSTODIAN (ECOLOGICALLY FRAGILE LANDS) & CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR (WILD LIFE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11/08/2016 IN I.A. NO.12633/2016.

¶16

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

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

rs.

¶19

WP(C).No. 6722 of 2006 (A)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶22

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26/10/1994 IN O.P. NO.1703/1990.

¶23

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/10/1997 IN W.A. NO. 811/1995.

¶24

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED UNDER THE CARDAMOM RULES DATED 25/11/1988.

¶25

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR DATED 09/05/1995.

¶26

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/09/2001 IN O.P. NO.12702/2001. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P6A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS.

¶28

EXT.P7 COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS.

¶29

EXT.P9 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03/10/2006.

¶30

EXT.P9A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08/09/2006. EXT.P9B COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09/06/2006. EXT.P10 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30/04/2015. EXT.P11 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22/01/2016. EXT.P12 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/05/2015.

¶31

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-

¶32

ANNEXURE R1A	COPY OF THE SECTION 5 NOTIFICATION.
ANNEXURE R1B	COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.C4.21437/2000
	DATED 04/10/2000 OF THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF
	FORESTS & CUSTODIAN.

¶33

....2/-

¶34

WP(C).No. 6722 of 2006 (A)

¶35

ANNEXURE R1C COPY OF THE ERRATUM NOTIFICATION. ANNEXURE R1D COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/10/2005 IN W.A. NO.562/2000. ANNEXURE R1E COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION RP NO.531/2001. ANNEXURE R1F COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/11/2005 IN WP(C).NO.17859 & 19671/2004.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P.(C) No.6722 of 2006

¶41

Dated this the 19^th day of September, 2016

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶44

a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Cardamom Estate comprised in Sy.NO.91 in Chakkitta Para Village, Koilandy Taluk Kozhikode District.

¶45

b. Issue a writ in the the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the respondents not to interfere with the agricultural operation carried on by the petitioner in his cardamom estate in Sy.No.912 in Chakkittapara Village, Koilandy Taluk in Kozhikode Dt.

¶46

c. Issue any other such writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in order to meet the ends of justice on the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case; and

¶47

d. award the costs of this case to the petitioner.

¶48

The property in question is declared as forest under the provisions of Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003. The contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the cardamom estate owned by the petitioner are excluded from the purview of the provisions of the Act.

¶49

The first respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the property of the petitioner is part of an extensive malavaram known as Olathookky Arialakkan Malavaram which was earlier vested in Government as per Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. It was also stated that the area was notified under section5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1985 as per Ext.R1(a). It was

¶50

:2:

¶51

W.P.(C) No.6722 of 2006

¶52

further stated that considering the ecological importance of the area, the land attracts provision of ecologically fragile lands ordinance 8/2000, which was notified vide C4.21437/2000 dated 4.10.2000 of the Chief Conservator of Forests and Custodian, Thiruvananthapuram as per Ext.R1(b) notification.

¶53

The constitutional validity of Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (Kerala) has already been upheld by this court in the judgment in Planters Forum V. State of Kerala [2015 (2) KLT 783] .

¶54

The petitioner has subsequently impleaded the Custodian (Ecologically Fragile Lands) and Chief Conservator (wild life) as additional fourth respondent and produced Ext.P12 application submitted before him. The petitioner has limited the relief seeking for a direction to the custodian to consider the application submitted for exclusion of his properties. Ext.P12 produced along with I.A.No.12634 of 2016 is seen furnished to the additional 4^th respondent on 11.5.2015. On receipt of Ext.P12 the additional 4^th respondent has by Ext.P11 letter dated 22.1.2016 sought for certain clarifications from the petitioner. The petitioner has not stated anything regarding the clarification sought.

¶55

I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶56

W.P.(C) No.6722 of 2006

¶57

:3:

¶58

Special Government Pleader.

¶59

In the above circumstances, I direct the additional 4^th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P12 application in accordance with law, on receipt of the clarification sought from the petitioner. The petitioner will be free to submit clarification sought in Ext.P11, if not furnished so far, within a period of two weeks. Additional 4^th respondent shall pass orders on Ext.P12 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the clarification sought in Ext.P11.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶62

rkc

C.K.Sasankan v. Divisional Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.K.Sasankan v. Divisional Forest Officer

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

E.K.Augustine Vs State of Kerala

K.G.Sarathchandran Vs State of Kerala and Others

Manjeswaram Dredging Workers Union Vs State of Kerala

Bhavadas M.S Vs v.S.Senthil

T.K.Sugathan Vs State of Kerala

Sgs Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala