Allowed

Radharishnan, v. the District Collector

Kerala HC12 Feb 2019WP(C)/2566/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court accepted a revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the classification of his private land as vested forest land. The court directed the State authorities, specifically the Village Officer and District Collector, to expedite the inquiry, verify the land's boundaries with the help of a surveyor, obtain the forest department's views, and pass a final order on the revision peti

What did the court decide?

Directed the Village Officer to expedite the inquiry, Deputy Collector to ensure survey of the property with forest officials, and the Collector to pass final orders on the revision petition within fo

Radharishnan, Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 23RD MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 2566 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

RADHARISHNAN,AGED 68 YEARS S/O NARAYANAN, 1/12F, SOORYAKANTHI, VELLAMKOLLY, CHUNDALE.P.O, WAYANDD- 673 123.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,WAYANAD. PIN - 673 122.

¶11

2 THE TAHSILDAR, VAITHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD. PIN - 673 576.

¶12

3 VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTAPPADI VILLAGE, VAITHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD. PIN - 673 577.

¶13

4 RANGE OFFICER, FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MEPPADY RANGE, WAYANAD. PIN - 673 577.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.SANDESH RAJA.K, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER(FOREST)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶18

==================

¶19

W.P.(C).No. 2566 of 2019

¶20

==================

¶21

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2019

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

¶24

“i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P-8 and pass orders thereon under Sec. 13A on Surveys and Boundaries Act and permit the petitioner to pay basic tax for the entire 2.82 hectares of land owned by the petitioner as is clear from Ext.P-4 within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶25

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 2^nd and 3^rd to accept basic tax from the petitioner for the property covered by Ext.P-1 as was being done in Ext.P-4 within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶26

iii. issue such other orders, writs or directions as are deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.

¶27

iv. award cost of this proceedings to the petitioner .”

¶28

Heard Smt.R.P.Reena, learned counsel appearing for the

¶29

petitioner and Sri.K.Sandesh Raja, learned Special Govt. Pleader (Forest) appearing for the respondents.

¶30

The case set up by the petitioner is that the prior title holder has secured title in respect of the subject property on the basis of Ext.P-2 registered sale deed No.1243/1983 and Ext.P-3 purchase certificate dated 9.12.1976 of the Land Tribunal, Sulthan Batheri, Wayanad District and that later the petitioner has purchased the said property on the basis of Ext.P-1 registered sale deed and that the

¶31

W.P.(C).2566/19 - : 3 :-

¶32

property was also mutated in his name and basic land tax was also paid by him. Further the petitioner would state that serious errors have occurred in the resurvey process by which it was erroneously shown in the resurvey records that subject property belonging to the petitioner is pertaining to forest land. The petitioner would point out that in Ext.P-5 letter issued by none other than the 4^th respondent Range Officer on 27.7.1990 it was clearly admitted that the property is not a vested forest. But later they have issued Ext.P-6 letter dated 25.1.2014 stating that the property is vested with forest, etc.

¶33

The petitioner has now submitted Ext.P-8 revision petition dated 10.1.2019 under Sec. 13A of the Survey & Boundaries Act, 1961, before the 1^st respondent District Collector stating that the proceedings in the resurvey process, by which it has been shown that the subject property is one pertaining to vested forest, etc. is clearly wrong and that property in old survey No.270/3 and resurvey No.265 in block No. 27 is not a vested forest land and it is a private land over which the petitioner's predecessor and the petitioner have acquired valid and lawful title and that the said mistakes in the resurvey process should be corrected by recourse to Sec. 13A proceedings.

¶34

Now it is submitted by Sri.K.Sandesh Raja, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) on the basis of the instructions

¶35

W.P.(C).2566/19 - : 4 :-

¶36

that the matter in Ext.P-8 revision petition has already been entrusted by the 1^st respondent District Collector to the 3^rd respondent Village Officer for submission of inquiry report and that after complying with t he necessary formalities, the 1^st respondent will pass orders on the said revision petition in accordance with, etc.

¶37

Taking note of the abovesaid aspects, it is ordered that the 3^rd respondent Village Officer will expedite the inquiry process and with due prior notice to the petitioner and submit a report in the matter to the 1^st respondent District Collector and copy of the said report should be given to the petitioner in advance. Thereafter the 1^st respondent District Collector will ensure the subject property is got surveyed and measured with the aid and assistance of the competent surveyor concerned with due prior notice to the petitioner so as to ascertain the correctness of the petitioner's submission that there has been mistake in the resurvey process and that description of the property as vested forest land in the resurvey process, is a mistake etc. The surveyor will submit his report on completion of the survey and measurement of the property with a copy survey sketch. A copy of the said report along with survey sketch should be given to the petitioner in advance. The 1^st respondent District Collector may also consult with the forest officials concerned and ascertain their views in

¶38

W.P.(C).2566/19 - : 5 :-

¶39

the matter and copies of the reports submitted by the Forest officials should also be given to the petitioner in advance. Thereafter, the petitioner may file his written submission in the matter and then the

¶40

1^st respondent will afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the representative of the Forest Department and will pass final orders disposing of Ext.P-8 revision petition without much delay, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶41

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶42

sdk+

¶43

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶44

W.P.(C).2566/19 - : 6 :-

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY 27.04.1998.	OF	THE REGISTERED SALE DEED
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY O	F THE	SALE DEED NO. 1243/83.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY NO.2438/76	OF DATED	THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE 09.12.1976.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY 14.05.1998.	OF	BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY RANGE OFFER	OF L DATED	ETTER ISSUED BY THE FOREST 27.07.1990.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY 25.01.2014	OF THE TO THE	LETTER NO.H1-7158/10 DATED FOREST RANGE OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY ISSUED TO T	OF THE HE PET	INFORMATION DATED 02.07.2015 ITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY FILED BY SURVEYS AND	OF THE THE P BOUND	APPLICATION DATED 10.01.2019 ETITIONER UNDER SEC.13A OF ARIES ACT.

Radharishnan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radharishnan, v. the District Collector

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

Dr.T.P.Jayakrishnan, Vs the State of Kerala

Shaijo @ Shijo, Vs the Tahsildar

Johnson Vs the State of Kerala

Muraleedharan Vs State of Kerala

Kishore a. Vs the Secretary to Govt.

Poomulli Neelakandha Namboothiripad Memorial Bharatheeya Sasthra Vidya Peedham, Vs the District Collector