REMADEVI PATHIYIL Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first petitioner owns 1.750 acres of land and the second petitioner owns 1.500 acres of land in Sy.Nos.5/2 and 5/1, respectively, of Nilambur village, which lie between the Kuthirapuzha and the reserve forest at Nilambur in Malappuram District. The only access to the said land from Manjeri-NIlambur road is through a ghat road of about 300 meters, running through the forest. There is no other access to the said property to the main land. The petitioners are cultivating the land and use the ghat road to transport manure and other agricultural accessories to their land from main land and to transport agricultural products from their land to the main land in vehicles. Petitioners are aggrieved by the forest officials preventing the petitioners from using the ghat road for the said purposes. According to the petitioners, a Division Bench of this Court has allowed another person to use the very same ghat road as access to his property. Therefore, there is no reason why the petitioners should also be not allowed to use the said road for vehicular access to the property to and from the main land is the contention raised. The petitioners seek the following relief:

(2.) THE respondents have taken that order in appeal before the Division Bench in W.A No.1304/2007. In that writ appeal, confirming the said interim order, a Division Bench of this Court passes the following judgment:

(3.) THE Special Govt. Pleader (Forest) submits that although the review petition mentioned in the judgment of the Division Bench has also been finally dismissed, it remains a fact that in view of section 2(ii) of the Forest Conservancy Act 1980, the respondents cannot allow the petitioners to use the forest road without obtaining permission form the Central Government. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 6. The ownership of the land by the petitioners is not disputed by the respondents. It is also not disputed before me that the petitioners cannot enjoy the property without getting access to the property through the ghat road in question. It is a fact that both the forest authorities and another private individual is using the road for vehicular transport. If owner of a land cannot enjoy his property, there is no meaning in owning the land itself. I do not think that the use of the ghat road comes with the purview of 2(ii) of the Forest Conservancy Act 1980. If the respondents are of opinion that use of the ghat road would violate any provision of law, insofaras the petitioners cannot enjoy the property without using the road, then the Government should acquire that land also, which course of action is always open to the Government. But so long as the petitioners are in ownership and occupation of the land and they cannot enjoy their property except by using the ghat road, especially when the Division Bench also had taken such a view, I do not think that it will be just and humane for the respondents to prevent the petitioners from the use of the said ghat road. It is all the more so when the use of the road is for agricultural purpose, which activity is dwindling day by day is the main land and no state can survive for long without agricultural production. 7. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order dated 04.04.2007.