(1.) According to the petitioner, petitioner purchased 6.05 cents of property from one K.G.Sebastian as per document No.2687/94 of SRO, Nenmara. It is the case of the petitioner that, the said property was in possession of the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest from 1935 onwards. The 5th respondent conducted an enquiry in the year 2005 in connection with an application filed by the petitioner for NOC and found that, the said property is not included in the forest land or puramboke land. It is also the case of the petitioner that, respondents 3 to 5 have conducted a joint verification of the properties under the territorial limits of the 4th respondent herein for the purpose of preparing the list of inhabitants of that area eligible for issuance of pattayam, however, no pattayam is issued. It is thus seeking appropriate directions, this writ petition is filed.
(2.) A detailed statement is filed by the 4th respondent stating as follows in paragraph 5:
(3.) The sum and substance of the contention advanced by the 4th respondent is that, the submission made by the petitioner in the writ petition is not at all true or correct. The land claimed by the petitioner is a forest land, which is remaining un-surveyed. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. However, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that, petitioner's predecessor-in-interest of title was in possession of the property from the year 1935 onwards. In this regard, petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 before the 6th respondent, which is pending consideration. I am of the considered opinion that, without specifying anything on merits, a direction can be issued to the 6th respondent to consider Ext.P7 in accordance with law.