Remanded

M.Syed Alavi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Mar 2017WP(C)/2552/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the controversy over whether petitioners' properties fall within a government forest notification is a fact question requiring a survey. It directed the 8th Respondent to conduct a survey and demarcation within four months to resolve the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 8th Respondent to complete the survey and demarcation of the notified area within four months from receipt of the judgment.

M.Syed Alavi Vs State of Kerala — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/11TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2552 of 2015 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. M.SYED ALAVI, T.C.9/314 (3), PLRA F 42.2,

¶8

PANNICKERS LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2. SULEKHA BEEVI, T.C.9/314 (3), PLRA F 42.2,

¶10

PANNICKERS LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

3. S.A.JALEEL, T.C.9/314 (3), PLRA F 42.2, PANNICKERS LANE,

¶12

SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

4. SHAJAHAN.S., T.C.9/314 (3), PLRA F 42.2, PANNICKERS LANE,

¶14

SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH

¶16

RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (FOREST),

¶18

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶19

2. THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (EFL CUSTODIAN),

¶20

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.

¶21

3. CIRCLE CONSERVATOR (FOREST), SOUTHERN RANGE, KOLLAM- 690 001.

¶22

4. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶23

5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶24

2/-

¶25

-2-

¶26

WP(C).NO.2552/2015

¶27

6. VILLAGE OFFICER, THENNUR-695 126.

¶28

7. SUB REGISTRAR, PALODE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE,

¶29

PALODE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 583.

¶30

*ADDL.R8 IMPLEADED

¶31

*Addl. R8. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FOREST MINI SURVEY, MANTHOTTAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

¶32

*IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R8 AS PER ORDER DATED 6/1/16 IN IA.NO.18521/15.

¶33

BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FORESTS) SRI.SANDESH RAJA.K

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

sts

¶36

WP(C).No. 2552 of 2015 (T)

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶39

P1TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF LAND TAX TO GOVERNMENT REGARDING THE PROPERTY OF 1ST PETITIONER.

¶40

P1(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF LAND TAX TO GOVERNMENT REGARDING THE PROPERTY OF 1ST PETITIONER.

¶41

P1(B)- TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF LAND TAX TO GOVERNMENT REGARDING THE PROPERTY OF 1ST PETITIONER.

¶42

P1(C)- TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE.

¶43

P1(D)- TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER.

¶44

P2TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE PROPERTY OF 2ND PETITIONER.

¶45

P2(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE PROPERTY OF 2ND PETITIONER.

¶46

P2(B)- TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER.

¶47

P2(C)- TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PROPERTY OF 2ND PETITIONER.

¶48

P3TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PROPERTY OF 3RD PETITIONER.

¶49

P3(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PROPERTY OF 3RD PETITIONER.

¶50

P3(B)- TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PROPERTY OF 3RD PETITIONER.

¶51

P3(C)- TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE REGARDING THE PROPERTY OF 3RD PETITIONER.

¶52

P3(D)- TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE.

¶53

P4TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PROPERTY OF 4TH PETITIONER.

¶54

P4(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PROPERTY OF 4TH PETITIONER.

¶55

P4(B)- TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PROPERTY OF 4TH PETITIONER.

¶56

2/-

¶57

-2-

¶58

WP(C).No. 2552 of 2015 (T)

¶59

P4(C)- TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶60

P4(D)- TRUE COPY OC THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE.

¶61

P5TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OBTAINED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FROM AGRICULTURAL WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD.

¶62

P6TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OBTAINED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER FROM AGRICULTURAL WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD.

¶63

P7TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OBTAINED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER FROM AGRICULTURAL WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD.

¶64

P8TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OBTAINED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FROM AGRICULTURAL WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD.

¶65

P9TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 30.9.2010 BY PETITIONERS.

¶66

P10TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 24.11.2010 GIVEN BY 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶67

P11TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 7.9.2010.

¶68

P12TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ON 7.1.2011 SENT BY PETITIONERS TO THE 3RD DEFENDANT.

¶69

P13TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 20.6.2011 BY PETITIONERS.

¶70

P14TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20.6.2011 RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶71

P15TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED FOR EXHIBIT P15 PETITION.

¶72

P16TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THENNUR BY PETITIONERS.

¶73

P17TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 1.10.2011 SENT BY VILLAGE OFFICER, THENNUR TO EXHIBIT P16.

¶74

P18TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2011 IN W.P.[C]NO.29078/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶75

P19TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 18.2.2013 ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶76

P20TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CONTEMPT CASES(CIVIL)NO.1922 OF 2012 DATED 20.2.2013.

¶77

3/-

¶78

-3-

¶79

WP(C).No. 2552 of 2015 (T)

¶80

P21TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS FOR THE TAX PAID FOR THEIR PROPERTIES.

¶81

P22TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS FOR PAYMENT OF WELFARE AMOUNT TO THE AGRICULTURAL WORKER'S WELFARE FUND.

¶82

P23TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.10.2014 SENT BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶83

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS AND ANNEXURES:

¶84

ANNEXURE R4(A) COPY OF THE LETTER NO.S.444/12 DATED 20/2/2013 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FOREST MINI SURVEY, MATHOTTAM, KOZHIKODE.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶89

============================== W.P.(C)No.2552 of 2015

¶90

============================== Dated this, the 02^nd day of March, 2017.

¶91

J U D G M E N T

¶92

The sole controversy in this case is whether the properties owned by the petitioners are included in Ext.P11 notification issued by the Government under the provisions of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003. The petitioners maintain that their properties are not so included and they say that this is obvious from Ext.P15, which is the information provided by the Divisional Forest Officer, that their properties are not so included. However, the learned Special Government Pleader submits that any such assertion could be possible only after a proper survey is conducted to see whether the properties are so included.

¶93

I am of the view that a proper and complete resolution of the disputes would be possible only if the facts are finalized conclusively. The question as to

¶94

W.P.(C)No.2552 of 2015 : 2 :

¶95

whether the properties are included or otherwise is essentially questions of facts more than being questions of laws. This requires a resolution by a proper survey. I see that a statement has been filed on behalf of the 4^th respondent, who says that every effort will be taken to complete the survey and demarcation of the entire area involved in Ext.P11 notification, within a period of 3 months. He says that he could have completed it before 3 months but that since there is only one Forest Mini Survey Team for the whole of Kerala, it would require at least this period of time. I think this is a fair submission and that if a survey is so completed, it will find a quietus to the whole issue.

¶96

In such circumstances, I direct the 8^th respondent to complete the survey and demarcation of the entire area involved in Ext.P11 notification within a period not exceeding 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since I see that the issues raised in this writ petition has been pending since 2011, I direct the 8^th respondent to treat these directions as been

¶97

W.P.(C)No.2552 of 2015 : 3 :

¶98

peremptory and complete the exercise as afore within the time granted herein without seeking any further extension of time. Obviously, after the survey is complete and a proper sketch made, the petitioners' claim for NOC with respect to their property will have to be considered by the Competent Authority if their properties are found not to be within the area notified under Ext.P11, without any further delay thereafter.

¶99

Writ petition is ordered as above. I make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶100

Sd/-

¶101

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶102

Bb/13/03/2017

¶103

[True copy]

¶104

P.A to Judge

M.Syed Alavi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Syed Alavi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kozhuvanal Grama Panchayath Vs M.a.Jose

K.Geetha Vs State of Kerala

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Anr.

Beena Joseph Vs State Bank of India and Others

M.C.Pappan and Another Vs Secretary, Mundakayam Grama Panchayath

S.Balasubramanian Vs the Director General