Disposed

Ramankutty v. Divisional Forest Officer

Kerala HC7 Oct 2021WP(C)/33819/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging forest officials' prevention of rubber tapping on properties declared non-vestible by the Forest Tribunal. Court directed the Divisional Forest Officer to decide their representation within two months considering Tribunal orders and a prior Court judgment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Divisional Forest Officer to decide the petitioners' representation within two months after affording them an opportunity of being heard.

Ramankutty Vs Divisional Forest Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 15TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 33819 OF 2009

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 RAMANKUTTY S/O.LATE MEENAKSHI AMMA

¶8

2 N.K.SANKARANKUTTY S/O. LATE MEENAKSHI AMMA

¶9

3 N.K.RADHAKRISHNAN S/O. LATE MEENAKSHI AMMA

¶10

4 N.K.VISWANATHAN S/O. LATE MEENAKSHI AMMA

¶11

5 N.K.NARAYANANKUTTY S/O. LATE MEENAKSHI AMMA,

¶12

ALL RESIDING AT NADUVATHUKALATHIL VEEDU, VADAKUMPRAM AMSOM, MELOOR DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶13

BY ADVS. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, OLAVAKKOD, PALAKKAD.

¶16

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTE BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

*ADDL.R3 ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED

¶18

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FOREST MINI SURVEY, MANGOD, KOZHIKOD

¶19

*ADDL.R3 IMPLEADE VIDED ORDER IN IA. NO.16293/09 DT.11.3.11

¶20

WP(C) No.33819 of 2009

¶21

¶22

BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI JACOB E.SIMON

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C) No.33819 of 2009

¶25

¶26

VIJU ABRAHAM,J.

¶27

................................................................. W.P.(C) No.33819 of 2009

¶28

................................................................. Dated this the 7^th day of October, 2021

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Petitioners are absolute owners of various properties

¶31

covered by Exts.P1, P3, P4, P6, P8, P9, and P10 sale deeds. The petitioners contend that all these properties covered by the abovementioned sale deeds are part of properties declared by Exts P2, P5, P7, and P11 orders of the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad as not liable to be vested in the Government as per the provisions of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 and which were directed to be restored by the Government to the applicants. Petitioners contend that they were paying basic tax for these properties as is evident from Exts.P12 and P13 tax receipts and the properties are covered by Ext P14 permit issued by the Rubber Board. While the petitioners were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid properties, on 26.10.2009 the forest officials under the 1^st respondent prevented the petitioners and their workers from tapping rubber plants in survey Nos.11/3 and 11/4 in Ambalappara II Village covered by the aforementioned documents stating that the land is forest land and in case the petitioners and their workers continue with the tapping, they will

¶32

WP(C) No.33819 of 2009

¶33

¶34

take action against them including registration of criminal cases. In the said circumstance, the petitioners approached the 1^st respondent by filing Ext.P15 representation dated 3-11-2009 highlighting all the relevant details and seeking to take steps to redress their grievance.

¶35

In Ext.P15 it was categorically stated by the petitioners that similarly situated persons have approached this Court filing W.P.(C) Nos.20009 of 2009 and 20017 of 2009 when the forest officials prevented them from enjoying their properties situated in survey Nos.11/3 and 11/4 of Ambalappara II Village, contending that they are in possession and ownership of properties which were declared by the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad in O.A.No.11 of 1975 as properties not liable to be vested in the Government and this Court by Ext.P16 judgment directed the forest officials to take steps to de-notify the land based on the order of the Forest Tribunal and thereafter to receive the basic tax from the owners of the property. Petitioners submit that they are similarly situated and entitled to a direction as given in Ext.P16 judgment.

¶36

The 1^st respondent has filed a statement in which it is contended that even though original applications were allowed partly by the Forest Tribunal directing restoration of the properties, the applicants did not approach the Forest department for completing the survey and demarcation of the scheduled properties and that the petitioners purchased a portion of the properties covered by the order of the Forest

¶37

WP(C) No.33819 of 2009

¶38

¶39

Tribunal without obtaining any no-objection certificate from the Forest department. It is further contended that restoration can be effected to the eligible persons only after proper survey and demarcation of the scheduled properties and that a request is already made to the Mini Survey Wing, Kozhikode to complete the survey and demarcation of the scheduled properties covered by the orders passed by the Forest Tribunal. It is also stated by the 1^st respondent that steps will be taken to restore the scheduled properties covered by the order of the Forest Tribunal to the eligible persons immediately after completion of the survey and demarcation of the property by the Mini Survey Wing.

¶40

I have considered the rival contentions of the parties.

¶41

The petitioners contend that to date the steps to denotify

¶42

the land based on the order of the Forest Tribunal are not taken by the respondents and therefore sought a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P15 representation taking into consideration Exts.P2, P5, P7 and P11 orders passed by the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad and also Ext.P16 judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.20009 and 20017 of 2007. Learned Special Government Pleader(Forest) prayed for 2 months time to take a final decision in the matter.

¶43

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to

¶44

the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P15

¶45

WP(C) No.33819 of 2009

¶46

¶47

representation taking into consideration Exts.P2, P5, P7 and P11 orders of the Forest Tribunal and also Ext.P16 judgment of this Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. To facilitate proper disposal of the matter, the petitioners shall produce a copy of Ext.P15 representation, as also copies of Exts.P2, P5, P7 and P11 orders issued by the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad, and a copy of Ext.P16 judgment before the 1^st respondent along with the certified copy of this judgment.

¶48

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

VIJU ABRAHAM Judge

¶51

cks

¶52

WP(C) No.33819 of 2009

¶53

¶54

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33819/2009

¶55

PETITION	ERS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT	P1 PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED NO.2661/95 OF SRO OTTAPALAM DT.1.7.1995
EXHIBIT	P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.NO.8/75 OF FOREST TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD DT.31.8.1976
EXHIBIT	P3 PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED NO.2056/92 DT.5.6.1992 OF SRO OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT	P4 PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED NO.2055/92 DT 5.6.1992 OF SRO, OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT	P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED IN OA NOS.7/75 AND 11/75 DT 23.2.1977 OF FOREST TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
EXHIBIT	P6 PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED NO.2064/92 DT.5.6.1992 OF SRO, OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT	P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.14/75 DT.16.8.1976 OF FOREST TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
EXHIBIT	P8 PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED NO.986/96 DT.3.3.1996 OF SRO OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT	P9 PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED NO.117/90 DT.16.1.1990 OF SRO OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT	P10 PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED NO.538/89 DT.24.2.1989 OF SRO OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT	P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN OA.NO.9/75 AND 69/75 OF FOREST TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD DT.11.4.1977
EXHIBIT	P12 PHOTOCOPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DT.10.4.2008 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICE, AMBALAPPARA II
EXHIBIT	P13 PHOTOCOPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DT.9.11.2009 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICE, AMBALAPPARA II

¶56

WP(C) No.33819 of 2009

¶57

¶58

EXHIBIT P14 PHOTOCOPY OF PERMIT DATED 9.2.1995 ISSUED BY RUBBER BOARD EXHIBIT P15 PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.3.11.2009 FILED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P16 PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP[C]NOS.20009/09 & 20017/09 DATED 03.08.2009

¶59

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

Ramankutty v. Divisional Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramankutty 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.B.Biju Vs Union of India

G. Santhosh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

George Idicula Vs State of Kerala and Another

M/S. NTPC Limited Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Ntpc Limited Vs State of Kerala

Mohandas Shenoy Vs the Tahsildar, Thalappilly Taluk