S.BINDU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute between the petitioner and the State was thrashed out once, before this Court, as is evidenced by Ext.P3 and the judgment in appeal being Ext.P4. The petitioner in the above writ petition challenges Ext.P7 order passed purportedly in compliance with the judgments of this Court referred to above. Essentially, the dispute relates to about 5.5780 hectors of land in which the petitioner has been carrying on quarrying operations. The petitioner has come into the possession and ownership of these lands by sale and also by license of the Government. About 2.7452 hectors of land in Survey Nos.103/1 and 103/2 of Vallangy Village, Chittur Taluk in Palakkad District were purchased by the petitioner as per registered documents of SRO Nenmara. Admittedly, the said lands were handed over by the Forest Department to the Revenue Department for assignment, to carry on rubber cultivation. Such assignments were made for the specific purpose of rubber cultivation to the predecessors of interest in the petitioner. Though there is no dispute as to the factum of purchase made by the petitioner, the State contends that no such sale could have been made by the persons to whom the assignment was originally made. The balance properties comprised in 2.832 hectors of lands being revenue puramboke, was obtained by the petitioner on licence, again, specifically for the purpose of carrying on quarrying operations.

(2.) THE cause of action arose when the Forest Department issued Ext.P2 notice against the petitioner to stop the quarrying operations in both the aforementioned properties. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court by WP(C) No.16411/2012, while resulted in Ext.P3 judgment and later on stand modified in appeal by Ext.P4. For convenience, the property acquired on licence is referred to as "the licensed properties" and those purchased are referred to as "the assigned properties".

(3.) IT is to be noticed that the respondents 8 and 9 being the Secretaries of the Revenue and Forest Departments were impleaded by the petitioner, since the petitioner had a specific contention that any proceedings against the assigned properties could have been taken only by the Revenue Department and the licensed properties also could be proceeded against only by the Revenue Department. The State, however, asserted that both the said lands were forest lands and the proceedings taken by the Range Forest Officer was perfectly valid.