JAGANNADHA RAJU, J. :- This Original Petition is filed by Mrs. Aliakutty Paul, widow of late P. D. Paul, who was a successful .bidder for an abandoned estate which was offered for lease. Before a lease deed was executed, possession was given to Mr. P. D. Paul on his undertaking to execute a lease deed. Subsequently, without execution any lease deed and as some difference arose between the respondents and the auction purchaser, P. D. Paul postponed the execution of the lease deed. He ultimately died on 17-9-1991 leaving behind his widow, the present petitioner; as the executor of his Will. As no lease deed was executed various proceedings were taken and a lot of litigations ensued. All that is mentioned in detail in the Original Petition. Ultimately Ext. P16 show cause notice was issued by the second respondent on 12-10-1994 and the petitioner received it on 17-10-1994. Contending that though Ext. P16 is styled as a show cause notice, from the statements contained in it, it is clear that the second respondent made up his mind to take over possession of the rosary estate from the petitioner in exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 66 of the Kerala Forest Act, the present writ petition is filed for quashing Ext. P16.

2. The Writ Petition is resisted on different grounds by the respondents. It is the contention of the respondents that here is a case where without executing a lease deed, unauthorisedly late P.D. Paul, and subsequent to him the present petitioner, is continuing in possession of the Government Forest property by virtue of raising various excuses for not executing a registered lease deed and by filing different Original Petitions and suits and by obtaining interim orders in those litigations. It is contended that the Original Petition is not maintainable as it is filed for quashing a show cause notice. It is also contended that the petitioner has no legal right to be in possession of the property as no lease deed was executed. It is also contended that in this particular case the provisions of Section 22 of the Forest Act are not satisfied and that Section contemplates that a right can be acquired in or over reserved forest only under a grant or contract in writing, made by or on behalf of the Government. In this particular case, what was agreed to be given is a lease for 40 years, and not for 99 years, as originally thought of. A draft lease deed was sent to the petitioner's husband, but he never accepted it and he never accepted the conditions in it. Here is a case where there was no consensus ad idem regarding contract of lease. There is no contract as such and hence the alleged contract between the parties is void. There is also the impossibility of performance because after the auction was held it was found that 139.29 acres of the property that was put to auction was in the possession of strangers and it was not available for lease. Thus there is a frustration of the contract. On that ground also the contract is void. Everyone of the litigations launched by the petitioner ended against the petitioner, but still the petitioner is illegally and unauthorisedly continuing in possession. Hence action was sought to be taken under Ext. P 16. Section 66 gives power to prevent commission of offences. Under this Section the Forest Officer has the power to evict all encroachers and squatters from reserved forest or other lands under the control of the Forest Department. For exercising the powers under this Section, they, have all the powers of the Police Officers for the purpose of investigation or prevention of forest offences. Hence Ext. P 16 is perfectly valid. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits.

3. Before dealing with the arguments, it would be pertinent to mention a few salient facts and dates so that the controversy can be better appreciated. Under Ext.P 1 notification dated 5-1-1953 published in the Gazette on 13-1-1953 the lease right of forest lands was put up for auction on 9-2-1953. We are