Kerala High Court
The State Of Kerala vs M/S. Perumpara Estate (East) ... on 9 March, 2016
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/15TH CHAITHRA, 1938
WA.No. 697 of 2016 IN WP(C).8686/2016
------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C).8686/2016 DATED 09-03-2016
...................
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS :
---------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOREST & WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTAPURAM - 695 001.
3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, CENTRAL CIRCLE,
THRISSUR - 680 001.
4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST
OFFICER, VAZHACHAL DIVISION, CHALAKUDY
THRISSUR - 680 307.
5. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, SHOLAYAR RANGE, CHALAKUDY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 307.
R BY SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY, SPL. GOVT. PLEADER FOR FOREST
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS :
-----------------------------------
1. M/S. PERUMPARA ESTATE (EAST) MALAKKAPARA,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
C.M.MOHAMMED HAROON, MEHBOOB MANZIL, ANAMALAI ROAD,
CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2. M/S.PERUMPARA ESTATE (EAST) MALAKKAPARA,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 307
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER C.M.MOHAMMED HAROON
MEHBOOB MANZIL, ANAMALAI ROAD, CHALAKUDY
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 307.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN
SRI.JOPHY POTHEN KANDANKARY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J. & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A. No. 697 OF 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2016
JUDGMENT
Shaffique, J.
The appeal is filed against the interim order dated 09.03.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 8686 of 2016. The appeal is filed by the State of Kerala and its officials, who are the respondents in the writ petition inter alia contending that though the property in possession of the petitioner was resumed by the Government and possession was taken the same was directed to be given back during the pendency of the writ petition.
2. The respondents herein who are the petitioners claims to be in possession of an estate since 1968. According to them, though proceedings were taken for resumption of the estate, no orders were served on them. In the mean time on 05.03.2016 possession of the estate was taken from them. Petitioner therefore challenged the said action and sought to restore the possession to them.
3. Learned Single Judge after considering the matter observed that petitioners were in possession of the land since WA No. 697 of 2016 -:2:- 1968 and they cannot be termed as rank trespassers. The claim raised by them requires to be considered. It is observed that without giving opportunity to the petitioners to challenge the decision for resumption, taking possession is irregular. In that circumstances the learned Single Judge directed the respondents to put the petitioners in possession of the land.
4. While impugning the aforesaid interim order, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the possession taken by the Forest Department was in accordance with the earlier judgment of this Court in State of Kerala and others v. New World Investment (P) Ltd. [ILR 2016 (1) Kerala 817]. It is also submitted that the possession being taken on 05.03.2016 there was no reason to give back possession to the petitioners.
5. Having heard learned Special Government Pleader, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and having perused the records, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the directions issued by learned Single Judge. Apparently the resumption order is seemed to be passed on 29.02.2016. No WA No. 697 of 2016 -:3:- notice is seen to have been given for taking possession of the premises by fixing a particular date. Necessarily sufficient time ought to have been given to the petitioners to challenge the order of resumption. The learned Single Judge was therefore justified in passing the impugned order.
6. Under such circumstances we do not think that any interference is required in this matter. However, we permit the appellants to approach the learned Single Judge to file necessary counter affidavit and seek for modification or vacation of the interim order.
With the above observation the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
Ashok Bhushan, Chief Justice.
Sd/-
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
ttb/04/04