GEMINI PLANTATIONS PUTHENVEETTIL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

(2.) Petitioner claimed to be the owner in possession of 783 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.854/part of Muthalamada village. He claimed to have sold a portion of that property. Rest of the property is allegedly in the possession of petitioner. While so, forest officials attempted to cause obstruction to his enjoyment of the property and thereon he filed O.P.No.31094 of 2000 in this court. The forest officials contended that a portion of the property has been declared as ecologically fragile land. The Division Bench disposed of the original petition on 03-09-2008 as per Ext.P2, judgment permitting petitioner to raise its contentions against the notification before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 was directed to take physical verification and decide the matter within a period of four months. This court also ordered in Ext.P2, judgment that in between there will be a direction to the respondents therein not to dispossess petitioner if petitioner is in possession of the land. Petitioner was also permitted to approach the Forest Tribunal by way of appeal under Section 10 of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (for short, "the Act"). Accordingly, as against the decision of respondent No.2 petitioner has approached Forest Tribunal in O.A.No.15 of 2009. That matter is posted for evidence on 10-11-2010. In the meantime the D.F.O, Nedumangad has issued Exts.P5 and P6, letters directing petitioner to remove the fencing and crops in the disputed property. Petitioner filed Ext.P7, I.A.No.174 of 2009 before the Forest Tribunal in O.A.No.15 of 2009 for an order of injunction to restrain respondents from removing the existing fence and Ext.P9, application for permission to effect improvements in the disputed property. Grievance of petitioner is that Exts.P7 and P9, applications are not disposed of so far and in the meantime petitioner is under threat from the respondents regarding removal of fence and crops in the disputed property. Petitioner therefore seeks a direction to the Forest Tribunal for expeditious disposal of Exts.P7 and P9, applications and in the meantime for a direction to the respondents to maintain the present condition of the disputed land. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that notification itself is not valid so far as O.A schedule property is concerned. According to the learned Government Pleader, the property is ecologically fragile land and stands transferred to vested into respondents from the relevant date declared in the Act.

(3.) Those issues are matters to be decided by the Forest Tribunal and it is not necessary for me to go into those matters. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad to dispose of Exts.P7 and P9, applications as early as possible. It is directed that if any fence exists now in the disputed property, parties shall maintain its present condition until orders are passed by the Forest Tribunal. This petition is disposed of accordingly.