Allowed

Kerala Forest & Tourism Development Council - Idukki v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Oct 2018WP(C)/8537/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that respondents are duty bound to implement a prior order (Ext.P9) for eviction of encroachments on forest land without delay, provided there is no legal interdiction. The Court allowed the petitioners request for directions to implement the order, noting police aid could be sought if necessary.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to implement Ext.P9 order forthwith without further delay and to seek police aid if required.

Kerala Forest & Tourism Development Council - Idukki Vs… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 30TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 8537 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

KERALA FOREST & TOURISM DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL - IDUKKI NO. I-252/2009 F 201, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, M.P. NASSAR,S/O.PAREETH, AGED 42 YEARS, NO. 317, EMPEES TOWER, OPP. MANGATTUKAVALA BUS STAND,THODUPUZHA 685584, MOB.9349390567

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.T.ABHILASH

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF FOREST & WILD LIFE,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695001

¶11

2 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE,KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 686691

¶12

3 FOREST RANGE OFFICER MULLIRINGADU RANGE, THALAKODE PO,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 686693

¶13

4 JACOB S/O.CHACKO, AGED 67 YEARS,AMBAZTHUNGAL HOUSE, KANJIKUZHI VILLAGE,IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 685602

¶14

5 ROBIN JACOB S/O.JACOB, AGED 45 YEARS,AMBAZTHUNGAL HOUSE, KANJIKUZHI VILLAGE,IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 685602

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SPL GP SANDESH RAJA

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 8537 of 2018

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking

¶22

the following reliefs:

¶23

i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent implement Ext.P9 order forthwith.

¶24

ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent consider and finalize the Ext.P10 representation filed by the petitioner forthwith.

¶25

Iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1^st respondent not to interfere and give necessary support to the 2^nd respondent for implementing the Ext.P9 order in the light of Ext.P6 order passed by this Hon'ble Court forthwith.

¶26

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶27

and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing

¶28

for respondents 1 to 3.

¶29

3. Though notice had been taken out to respondents 4 and 5 by courier and notice had been duly served, there is no appearance for respondents 4

¶30

and 5.

¶31

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even in spite of repeated orders passed,

¶32

WP(C).No. 8537 of 2018 3

¶33

action has not been taken to evict the encroachers on forest land. It is stated that Ext.P10

¶34

representation preferred by the petitioner is pending.

¶35

5. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions would submit that Ext.P9 order has been passed on 22.2.2018 but it was only due to resistance offered by respondents 4 and 5 and other local residents that the same could not be implemented. It is submitted that appropriate steps for eviction of encroachments will be taken, in accordance with law, by respondents 1 to 3. It is submitted that the eviction proceedings will be carried out with police aid.

¶36

Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I am of the opinion that in case there is no legal interdiction, the respondents are duty bound to take appropriate further action, in accordance with law on the basis of Ext.P9. It will

¶37

be open to the respondents to seek police aid, in

¶38

WP(C).No. 8537 of 2018

¶39

¶40

case the situation so warrants. Action shall be

¶41

taken for implementation of Ext.P9 without further delay.

¶42

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

sab

JUDGE

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶49

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, IDUKKI DATED 14.10.2009

¶50

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF AFFILIATION FROM KERALA STATE YOUTH WELFARE BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE PETITIONER

¶51

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.12.2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE FOREST MINISTER OF KERALA

¶52

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.12.2017 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶53

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.12.2017 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶54

EXHIBIT P6 JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 23.01.2018 IN WPC.NO. 42192/2017

¶55

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENT

¶56

WP(C).No. 8537 of 2018

¶57

¶58

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶59

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. L1-8155/17 DATED 22.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.03.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1O A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 12.03.2018

¶60

TRUE COPY

¶61

PA TO JUDGE sab

Kerala Forest & Tourism Development Council - Idukki v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala Forest & Tourism Development Council - Idukki 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

Abraham.M.J Vs Kerala Water Authority

V.Narayanan Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Kalidasa Hotels Vs State of Kerala

Biju S Vs Tomin J.Thachankery IAS

M/S. Celon Labortories Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

Antonitto Vs State of Kerala