SHAJEER, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. KALLUVETTIKUZHIL MUHAMMED ALI, RESIDING AT NILAMBUR AMSOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Ext.P1 judgment, the Forest Tribunal, Manjeri ordered restoration of property to the petitioner's father. The matter was taken up in appeal before this Court in M.F.A No.610 of 1983, and finally before the Supreme Court, which all ended in dismissal. According to the petitioner, even though Ext.P1 order is confirmed, no action is initiated to restore the property to the petitioner. In that constrained circumstances, petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition and secured Ext.P2 judgment, by which this Court directed the respondents to restore possession to the petitioner and finalize the proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The said judgment is dated 02.09.2013. It is the contention of the petitioner that in spite of the directives issued by this Court in Ext.P2, as well as the earnest efforts of the petitioner, the matter did not attain a finality, which constrained the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.

(2.) Third respondent has filed a statement refuting the allegations and statements made by the petitioner. Ext.P1 order and the consequential judgment delivered by this Court and the Apex Court is admitted by the 3rd respondent. However, it is submitted, evident from Ext.R3(c), a Mahazar was prepared and the property is handed over to the petitioner. This is stoutly opposed by the petitioner stating that even though a Mahazar was prepared, the encroachers in the property were not removed, and the property is not actually handed over free of encumbrance to the petitioner. It is also contended that the respondents are duty bound to hand over the property without any encumbrance, since the property was taken away from the petitioner without any encumbrance. I find force in the contention.

(3.) Learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that after the re-survey, the property is not vested with the Forest Department, and is shown as a private land. This is also recorded.