KARUPARAMBIL MUHAMMED Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are not connected in their factual circumstances presented but are similar with respect to the legal issues involved. I, therefore, propose to dispose of both these writ petitions through this judgment.

(2.) In both these writ petitions claims have been made by the respective petitioners over certain extents of land, which are now claimed by the Forest Department to be part of a notification issued by them under the provisions of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (for short, Act 1971). The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9204/2007 claims title and ownership over the property involved therein; while the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9240/2016 claims the right of way through an extent of land, which is claimed by him to be a public road maintained by the Local Self Government Institution.

(3.) At the time when these writ petitions were filed, the petitioners say that they were not aware of the notification issued by the Custodian of Vested Forest, Thiruvananthapuram under the Act, 1971. According to them, it is only when this writ petition was considered by this Court and when a counter affidavit was filed by the Government that this notification has been placed on record.