Allowed

B.Chandran v. District Collector

Kerala HC15 Nov 2023WP(C)/6655/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner sought directions to the District Collector to finally decide a dispute regarding forest permissions in Wayanad, citing prior judgments, and to restrain specific respondents from cutting trees until a decision is made. The Court allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to take a final decision within three months; restrained respondents from cutting trees until the decision is communicated.

B.Chandran Vs District Collector — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 6655 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

B.CHANDRAN, S/O.LAKSHMI, SIVAGIRI ESTATE,
THIRUNELLI P.O., THIRUNELLI VILLAGE,
MANANTHAVADI TALUK

¶7

BY ADV SHAJI JOSEPH

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD, MANANTHAVADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT 673 121

¶10

2 SUB COLLECTOR, MANANTHAVADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT PIN - 670 645

¶11

3 TAHSILDAR, MANANTHAVADI, TALUK OFFICE, MANANTHAWADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT 670 645

¶12

4 THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, BEGUR RANGE, MANANTHAVADI, WAYANAD 673 121

¶13

5 DEEPTHI JOY, CHEERAMKUZHI HOUSE, SIVAGIRI ESTATE, APPAPPARA, WAYANAD DISTRICT 670 646

¶14

6 ROSAMMA JOY, CHEERAMKUZHI HOUSE, SIVAGIRI ESTATE, APPAPPARA, WAYANAD DISTRICT 670 646

¶15

BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE
SRI. T.P.SAJAN, GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 6655/21

JUDGMENT

The petitioner seeks that the 1 st respondent – District Collector

¶21

be directed to take further action in terms of Ext.P6 judgment of a learned Division Bench of this Court, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. He also makes an adscititious plea that respondents 5 and 6 be injuncted from cutting and removing the trees standing in the ‘Brahmagiri A Estate’ and ‘Sivagiri Estate’, till a decision is taken by the 1 st respondent.

¶22

2 . In response, Sri.T.P.Sajan – learned Special Government

¶23

Pleader for Forests, submitted that he does not have instructions if the 1 st respondent has already taken a decision; and that if not, necessary action will be completed without any avoidable delay. He submitted that until then, any activity by respondents 5 and 6 in the Estates in question will be carefully watched.

¶24

3 . Smt.Elezabeth George – learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6, submitted that her clients have not acted illegally, but only in terms of the licenses and permissions given to them and that they

¶25

are not presently cutting or removing any trees in the Estates in

WPC 6655/21

question.

Taking note of the afore submissions, I allow this Writ Petition

¶30

and direct the 1 st respondent to hear the petitioner, as also respondents 5 and 6 and take a final decision pursuant to Exts.P5 and P6 judgments, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶31

Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is completed and the resultant order communicated to the petitioner and to the party respondents, the latter shall not cut and remove any trees standing in the Estates in question and this shall be ensured by the 3 rd respondent – Tahsildar.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

RR

¶34

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

WPC 6655/21

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6655/2021

¶39

`RESPONDENT ANNEXURES`
`ANNEXURE R4(a)`	`True copy of the` `DCWYD/4718/2018-B`	`circular No` `3 dated 28.03.2018`
`Annexure R4(b)`	`True copy of the` `dated 1.1.2019 is` `Mananthavady`	`letter No.A4/2700/18(1)` `sued by the Tahsildar,`
`Annexure R4(c)`	`True copy of the` `dated 3.01.2019 i`	`letter No.B2-1073/2018` `ssued by the R.F.O,Begur`
`Annexure R4(d)`	`True copy of the` `dated 18.3.2019 i`	`order No.B2.683/2018` `ssued by the R.F.O Begur`
`Annexure R4(e)`	`True copy of the` `dated 28.03.2019` `Begur.`	`order No.B2.683/2018` `issued by the R.F.O.`
`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.21200 OF 2018`	`JUDGMENT IN WP(C)` `DATED 11TH JULY, 2018.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.1740/2019 DATE`	`JUDGMENT IN WA.` `D 20.8.2019`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF COMM` `DIVISIONAL FOREST` `DIVISION DATED 12`	`UNICATION ISSUED BY THE` `OFFICER, NORTH WAYANAD` `.8.2005`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.22787/2014 DAT`	`JUDGMENT IN WP(C)` `ED 1.10.2014`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.15851/2012 DAT`	`JUDGMENT IN WP(C)` `ED 14.11.2012`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.14261/2015 DAT`	`JUDGMENT IN WP(C)` `ED 8.10.2018`

B.Chandran v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Chandran v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Benny Antony, Vs Managing Director

T.M.Madhavankutty Vs Malabar Devaswom Board

M/S Peediakkal Agencies, Vs the State of Kerala

K.Pramod Vs Sreedharan.K.P

M/S Kannur Platinum Drive LLP Vs Union of India

Eldho P. John Vs Prof. Manish R Joshi