ANISHKUMAR M.S. Vs. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the remand order passed by the District Court, Thodupuzha in A.S. No. 60/2008 through judgment dated 21.07.2010, the respondent has come up in appeal.

(2.) THE appellant as plaintiff filed O.S. No. 4/2005 before the Munsiff's Court, Idukki as a suit for perpetual injunction for restraining the respondents herein from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from destroying the improvements thereon and for interfering with the enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff. The plaint schedule property was described as 1.21.40 hectares of land in survey No. 6 in Block No. 50 of Indukki village within the boundaries shown in the schedule. Originally, the plaint was filed by showing the boundaries as poramboke land at East, PWD road at South, property of Ezharakath Mary at West and the property of Sivaraman Manakkat at North. It was averred in the plaint that the said property devolved on the plaintiff through patta in L.A. 197/2001 from the Special Tahsildar (LA), Idukki and long prior to that, the father of the plaintiff was in possession of the plaint schedule property. It was alleged that on 27.12.2004, 18 forest guards under the leadership of the 3rd respondent herein trespassed into the plaint schedule property and started destroying the improvements in the property. It is also alleged that they had demolished the residential building situated in the plaint schedule property. As the plaintiff and the local people interfered, the miscreants went away from the property. According to the plaintiff, again there was an attempt from the part of the forest officials on 10.01.2005 to trespass into the plaint schedule property and hence, the suit.

(3.) IMMEDIATELY after the filing of the suit, a Commission was taken out. The Commissioner allegedly visited the plaint schedule property and prepared and furnished Ext. C1 Commissioner's report appended with Ext. C1(a) sketch. Subsequently, another Commission was taken out for carrying out the measurements of the property for preparing its plan. The Commissioner submitted Ext. C2 report appended with Ext. C2(a) plan. According to the plaintiff, then the plaintiff could realise the mistake crept in Ext. A1 relating to the boundaries of the plaint schedule property and, therefore, the plaintiff approached the District Collector, Idukki with an application for rectification of the boundaries in Ext. A1 patta. According to the plaintiff, consequently, the Special Tahsildar (LA), Idukki inspected the plaint schedule property and ascertained that mistakes were crept in the boundaries shown in Ext. A1 patta. Consequently, through Ext. X1 proceedings, another patta was issued with corrected boundaries. On the basis of Ext. X1, the plaintiff applied for amendment of the boundaries of the property in the plaint. The amendment was allowed and the amendments were carried out. It seems that the court below has decreed the suit as prayed for through judgment and decree dated 21.08.2008.