Allowed

M/S. Estone Tea Estate v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Apr 2018WP(C)/2667/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerns a direction to state forest authorities to restore possession of specific land parcels to the petitioner tea estate company. The Court dismissed objections regarding pending notifications and directed restoration within six months.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of possession of 16.85 hectares of property to the petitioner within six months from the date of receipt of this judgment.

M/S. Estone Tea Estate Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No.2667 OF 2018(G)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S. ESTONE TEA ESTATE & INDUSTRIES LTD., KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY MOIDEEN KUNHI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. ELSTONE TEA ESTATE, KALPETTA P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶8

*THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS 'M/S.ELSTONE TEA ESTATES LIMITED' AS PER ORDER DATED 17.2.2020 IN I.A.NO.1/2020.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.ADARSH KUMAR SRI.K.M.ANEESH SRI.BIJU VARGHESE ABRAHAM SRI.DILEEP CHANDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

2 CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS NORTHERN REGION, ARAKKINAR P.O.,MATHOTTAM, KOZHIKODE28.

¶14

3 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER SOUTH WAYANAD DIVISION, KALPETTA.

¶15

4 FOREST CONSERVATOR EASTERN CIRCLE, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD.

¶16

5 FOREST RANGE OFFICER MEPPADY, MEPPADY P.O., VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶17

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.04.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No.2667 OF 2018(G)

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

According to the petitioner, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, the possession of the property was finalised by the order of the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad in 0.A. No. 44/1990, which was affirmed in Ext.P3 judgment. Even though the State has taken the matter in appeal before the Apex Court, the same was also dismissed, which thus means the order of the Forest Tribunal has become final and conclusive.

¶23

The following reliefs are sought for by the petitioner in the aforesaid stated facts:

¶24

"i)Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the competent amongst the respondents to restore an extent of 2.100 Hectares comprised of in Sy. No. 658/pt. of Kalpetta Village and an extent of 12.50 hectares and 3.250 hectares comprised of in Sy. No. 659/pt and Sy.No. 397/pt in Kalpetta Village respectively to the petitioner company, on the strength of Ext.P3 judgment of this Hon'ble Court.

¶25

ii) Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for in the circumstances of the case."

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of earnest efforts of the petitioner and reports namely, Exts.P4(a) and P8 of the forest authorities, the possession of the property is not restored to the petitioner. Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that a proposal, as per Section 4(1) of the Ecologically Fragile Land Act was given to the Government in the year 2010, which is pending consideration. However, it is

¶27

WP(C).No.2667 OF 2018(G)

¶28

¶29

also submitted that there is no notification under the aforesaid Act is issued by the Government.

¶30

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing the respective counsel across the Bar, there will be a direction to the respondents to restore possession of the property in question to the petitioner, at the earliest possible time, and at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if there are no other legal inhibitions standing in the way.

¶31

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Dcs

WP(C).No.2667 OF 2018(G)

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1:	A TRUE COPY OF THE E AND F UNDER KERAL FORESTS ACT	DESCRIPTION OF PLOTS B, A PRESERVATION OF
EXHIBIT P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE SK	ETCH GERMANE TO PLOT B.
EXHIBIT P2A:	TRUE COPY OF THE SK	ETCH GERMANE TO PLOT E.
EXHIBIT P2B:	TRUE COPY OF THE SK	ETCH GERMANE TO PLOT F.
EXHIBIT P3:	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.6.	HON'BLE HIGH COURT 2002.
EXHIBIT P4:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.1.200	HON'BLE SUPREME COURT 4.
EXHIBIT P4A:	A TRUE COPY OF THE	ORDER DATED 20.1.2007.
EXHIBIT P5:	A TRUE COPY OF THE 28.4.2009.	COMMUNICATION DATED
EXHIBIT P6:	A TRUE COPY OF THE 18.5.2009	INDEMNITY BOND DATED
EXHIBIT P7:	A TRUE COPY OF THE	LETTER DATED 18.5.2009.
EXHIBIT P8:	EXTRACT OF THE ORDE BY THE 2ND RESPONDE	R DATED 14.8.2009 ISSUED NT.
EXHIBIT P8A:	TRUE COPY OF THE GO 1.12.2010.	VERNMENT ORDER DATED
EXHIBIT P9:	A TRUE COPY OF THE 14.10.2013.	REPRESENTATION DATED
EXHIBIT P9A:	A TRUE COPY OF THE 20.3.2013.	REPRESENTATION DATED
EXHIBIT P9B:	A TRUE COPY OF THE 9.6.2015.	REPRESENTATION DATED
EXHIBIT P9C:	A TRUE COPY OF THE 23.9.2016.	REPRESENTATION DATED
EXHIBIT P9D:	A TRUE COPY OF THE 21.12.2017.	REPRESENTATION DATED
EXHIBIT P10:	A TRUE COPY OF THE RESTORATION.	UNDATED PROPOSAL FOR

M/S. Estone Tea Estate v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Estone Tea Estate 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

M/S. Yogakshemam Loans Limited Vs Shaji Madhavan

John a. Vs Hemachandran I.P.S.

Aswin C.S Vs Dr.Jayachandran R

Charles Mathew Vs V.V. Binu

Abdul Navas.P.a Vs the State of Kerala

Abdul Majeed Vs District Collector, Civil Station, Thrissur