Dismissed
State of Kerala, v. C.M.Andrews
Kerala HCRP/58/2019
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1944
RP NO. 58 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 6100/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.2 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NILAMBUR NORTH DIVISION, EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676541.3 THE RANGE OFFICER, FOREST RANGE OFFICE, EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676541.4 THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS, OLAVAKKOD, PALGHAT-678002.SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPL.GP
RESPONDENTS:
1 C.M.ANDREWS, S/O.LATE C.A.MATHEW, 15A, LINK HERITAGE APARTMENTS, CHITTOOR ROAD, KACHERIPADY-682018.2 C.M.JOSEPH, S/O.LATE C.A.MATHEW, POST BOX-10, SURREY ESTATE, NANDHATTY, GUDALUR, THE NILGRIS-643212. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVANTHIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NO.58 OF 2019
2
ORDER
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2023
This review petition is filed seeking a review of the interim order dated 22.11.2018 in W.P(C) No.6100/2017 on the ground that the interim direction to cut and remove the teak trees mentioned in Exts.P3 and P4 will amount to granting of the final prayer and therefore, it should not have been granted as an interim prayer. A further contention is raised that the land had been restored to the petitioners on the specific condition that any diversion of such forest land for non-forestry purpose requires prior permission of the Central Government irrespective of the ownership of the land in question. It is submitted that since the said condition was not challenged in the writ petition, the interim order passed was erroneous.
RP NO.58 OF 2019
3
can be heard and disposed of.
Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the
specific contentions raised in the writ petition and in the light of Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised in the review petition cannot be accepted. Even in case the conditions in Ext.P6 are pleaded by the respondents, the request of the petitioners being only for cutting and removing of teak trees which are old and deceased with the condition that they will replant teak trees in the said property itself, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised in the review petition cannot be accepted. In the above view of the matter, this
review petition is rejected.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
NP
The State of Kerala
C.M. Andrews
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court