ELIKUTTY PAUL Vs. D.F.O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the owner of an estate in the Nelliampathy range.The extent of the estate is claimed to be 247.07 acres.The petitioner 's husband,now no more,obtained the forest land on a lease arrangement.He had passed away on 17 -9 -1971.On 17 -3 -1975 by Ext.P1 she sought permission for construction of a bund to facilitate storage of water.The construction of the bund would necessarily obstruct the stream flowing through the reserve forest.The request was made to the Collector,when the Divisional Forest Officer intimated her that the Collector was the appropriate authority.Collector granted permission under Ext.P4 dated 15 -4 -1976,subject to the terms and conditions contained therein.The licence was valid only up to a period of 31 -3 -1977.Para.3 of Ext.P4 proceedings read as follows: The licensee is informed that the existing channels in the Reserve Forest should not be widened,deepened or further structures put I up without obtaining previous permission from the District Collector.The temporary bund should be constructed only at the site pointed out to by the Divisional Forest Officer,Nemmara and the height and length of the bund proposed to be constructed should not be changed under any circumstances without the consent of the Divisional Forest Officer,Nemmara and District Collector.Palghat ;.

(2.) THERE have been subsequent renewals of the licence from time to time as is evident from Exts.P5 to P7(d ).The period so extended expired on 31 -3 -1983.A restricted licence was then granted under Ext.P7(c)dt.24 -2 -84.There was a further application for renewal on 12 -3 -85.Renewal was sought for a period of 5 years.The request was not granted.The petitioner approached this Court on 3 -4 -1985 for a writ of mandamus restraining the DFO and his subordinate Officers from forcibly demolishing the bund put up ;.This Court admitted the writ petition 3 -4 -1985 and granted ex parte interim stay on the very same day.Though there was an attempt made by the respondent to have the stay vacated,that was unsuccessful.By order dated 29 -9 -1985,the writ petition was directed to be posted for hearing after one month.The writ petition could not be effectively taken up for hearing within that period.

(3.) THE short question for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to command the Government and its Officers to continue the licence granted for the construction of the bund.No legal right was relied on to compel such continuance of a licence of limited duration granted by the Government.The documents produced by the petitioners would themselves indicate the limited duration of the licence granted and the conditions contained therein.Even under the provisions of the original permission granted,the construction could be modified from time to time depending on the circumstances;and the Government could revoke the licence without any specific reasons.Condition No.9 made it obligatory on the part of the licensee to remove the bund within 6 months from the date of revoking the licence.In the counter affidavit it has been pointed out that the petitioner had,as a matter of fact,constructed two bunds in the reserve forest,and that she had deliberately and mischievously concealed from the Hon 'ble High Court the fact of having constructed the second bund In Ext.P7(c)dated 24 -2 -1984,the renewal was subject to the report of the Divisional Forest Officer,Nemmara.Para.4 of Ext.P7(c)refers to the conditions for such renewal.The conditions are: The flow of water should not be stopped by constructing bunds or mini dams.The water source should not be diverted completely.There should not be any undue damage to the down stream people. This in term made that the licensee had no right to continue the bund,if any,in the stream.What had been granted under Ext.P7(d)dated 25 -3 -1985 was only the extension of validity of the licence for one more year which bad been granted up to 31 -3 -1984.It is,therefore,clear that after 31 -3 -1985 the petitioner did not have any right to construct bund or mini dams.These facts are highlighted in the counter affidavit.It is pointed out that the water from stream is very essential for the survival of the wild life in the adjoining reserve forest area,and the bunds cannot be allowed to obstruct the stream any more.The necessity for removal of bunds from the streams in the reserve forest in the context of the establishment of the wild life sanctuary is again emphasised in the counter affidavit.It is stated: Now it is very essential for the fulfillment of the objects of forest and wild life Conservation to revoke and remove such bunds from the stream in the reserve forest.