PADMAKUMAR Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this Writ Petition is with respect to the interpretation of Sec. 6(2) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 ('the 1961 Act', for short). To be more precise, what is the ambit and scope of the expression 'known or reputed owner or occupier' as employed in Sec. 6(2), is the question involved.

(2.) The facts:-

(3.) The essential contention raised is that the petitioner was not issued with a notice under Sec. 6(2) of the 1961 Act, wherefore, the rest of the proceeding culminating in Ext.P11 Order, in terms of Sec. 10 of the 1961 Act, is bad in law. The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Certiorari quashing Ext.P11, as also, a declaration that the subject property having an extent of 1 hectare and 9 ares is liable to be excluded from the scope of Ext.P8 proclamation/ notification issued under Sec. 6 of the 1961 Act. The petitioner also seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent/Forest Settlement Officer to reconsider Ext.P11, after hearing the claim of the petitioner. It appears from the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, it is this relief which is being pressed before this Court.