P J MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition is filed seeking for quashing Ext. P6 and praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to assign 4.05 acres of land in Sy. No. 2045 of Palakkayam Village in Mannarkkad Taluk in favour of the petitioner on the basis of G.O. (MS) No. 655/89/RD dated 31.8.1989. Consequential reliefs have also been prayed for.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he had purchased the said parcel of land from one Chacko and who on his part had obtained the properties by an oral lease from Mankada Kovilakam. A purchase certificate dated 15.5.1976 is seen issued in his favour. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner had made an application before the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 for a declaration that the property in question is not a vested forest as O.A. No. 391/76. But, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said property stood vested as private forest, and the application was dismissed. This order was thereafter confirmed by this Court in appeal, on 30-10-1979.

(3.) The claim of the petitioner is that he was in possession of the land through out. The present claim was on the strength of G.O. (MS) No.655/89 dated 31-8-1989. Petitioner had moved afresh claiming the benefits that were reserved by the above Government order. He submits that those who were in occupation of forest land as on 1-1-1977 are entitled to get the benefit of possession and assignment of such land in their favour, as per the said Government Order. Even though a copy of the said order was not produced by the petitioner, the Government had made available the same as Ext. R3-D appended to the counter affidavit. The petitioner has produced Exts. P2 and P3, which were clarificatory orders issued subsequent to Ext. R3-D. It is to be noted that the petitioner has succeeded in arranging for a joint inspection pursuant to the above claims put up and the Mahazar is produced as Ext. P4 which certifies that the petitioner was in possession of the property from 1977 onwards. However, the report shows that in 1977 the Forest Department was in possession of the land for arranging plantation of Cashew and other crops. The cut off date of G.O. (MS) 655/89 is 1.1.1977. But, however, it was not certified that the petitioner was in possession of the properties as on the said day.