Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1023 (KER)

Ramachandran v. Revenue Divisional Officer

2011-09-30

ANTONY DOMINIC

body2011
Judgment 1. By Ext.P1 document of 26.6.2006, petitioner purchased 2.62 acres of land scheduled to the said document. A portion of the property was acquired for the purpose of National Highway, which is evident from Ext.P2 and the balance is still owned by the petitioner. Ext.P3 is the possession certificate and Ext.P4 is the receipt evidencing payment of tax. 2. By Ext.P5 dated 20.12.2003, a. notification issued under S.4 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, the property in question was proposed to be declared as a reserved forest. Subsequently, Forest Settlement Officer issued Ext.P6 notification. In terms of S.6 of the Act. This notification was issued on 10.8.2010 and includes the property of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 title deed. This proclamation states that it will come into effect from the date of its publication in the gazette and that whoever claims any right over the lands mentioned therein, shall within four months appear or file written statement before the Forest Settlement Officer specifying the nature of such right. 3. Petitioner states that he is employed abroad and admits of having not responded to Ext.P6 within the four months period specified therein. He also has a case that he has not given individual notice as contemplated in S.6(2). Subsequently, he filed Ext.P8 objection dated 26.5.11, which was rejected by the Forest Settlement Officer as per Ext.P9 on the ground that it is belated. It is thereupon the Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P9 and to direct consideration of Ext.P8. Alternate prayer requiring the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner under S.8(3) of the Forest Act is also sought for. 4. I heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. The whole controversy in the Writ Petition depends upon the understanding of S.8 of the Forest Act, which is extracted below for reference:- “8. Inquiry by Forest Settlement Officer.—(1) The Forest Settlement Officer shall inquire into all claims made under Section 6 recording all statements and the evidence in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure for appealable cases. (2) He shall, at the same time, consider and record any objection which the Forest Officer, if any appointed under Section 4 to attend at the inquiry on behalf of the Government, may make to any such claim. (2) He shall, at the same time, consider and record any objection which the Forest Officer, if any appointed under Section 4 to attend at the inquiry on behalf of the Government, may make to any such claim. (3) He may also inquire into and record the existence of any rights referred to in S.4 and not claimed in answer to the notice issued under S.6, so far as they are ascertainable from the records of the Government and the evidence of any person likely to be acquired with the same.” 6. It is in terms of this Section that the claim of the petitioner will have to be understood. As far as sub-s.(1) and (2) of S.8 are concerned, that inquiry is confined to claims made under S.6 of the Act. Therefore, such claims made under S.6 should be within the four months period specified in Ext.P6. Admittedly, for whatever reason, the petitioner has not made his claim within the time allowed and therefore the rejection of Ext.P9 on the ground that it was belated cannot be faulted. 7. However, that is not the end of the matter. A reading of sub-s.(3) shows that the Forest Settlement Officer is “also” required to inquire into and record the existence of any right referred to in S.4 and not claimed in answer to the notice issued under S.6 so far as they are ascertainable from the records of the Government and the evidence of any person likely to be acquainted with the same. The word “also” used in sub-s.(2) would indicate that the responsibility of conduct in inquiry is in addition to the obligations of the Forest Settlement Officer under S.8(1) and 8(2). Further, this sub section also clarifies that such inquiry is in relation to matters which are not claimed in answer to notice issued under S.6 and ascertainable from the records of the Government and evidence collected from the person. Therefore, even if the objection filed by the petitioner is rejected on the ground that it is belated, that does not absolve the Forest Settlement Officer from his obligation to conduct inquiry in terms of S.8(3). This has not been conducted in this case and therefore the petitioner is entitled to the alternate relief sought in the Writ Petition. 8. Therefore, even if the objection filed by the petitioner is rejected on the ground that it is belated, that does not absolve the Forest Settlement Officer from his obligation to conduct inquiry in terms of S.8(3). This has not been conducted in this case and therefore the petitioner is entitled to the alternate relief sought in the Writ Petition. 8. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that the Forest Settlement Officer, shall conduct inquiry in terms of S.8(3) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 as regards the petitioner’s property and this shall be done as expeditiously as possible with notice to the petitioner. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance.