1. Ext.P16 order passed by the Custodian of Vested Forest, Palakkad, as also Ext.P17 notification issued under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 are impugned in this writ petition preferred by the petitioners who are members of the Kookil Tharwad of Thalassery in the State of Kerala.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:

The Petitioners are members of the Kookil tharwad, which owned vast extents of forest land in Ernad Taluk in Malappuram District. The properties of the tharwad were partitioned in O.S.No.69/1949 before the Sub Court, Thalassery. A final decree was passed in I.A.No.734 in the said suit. As per the final decree, the forest land owned by the tharwad was partitioned equally and each member of the tharwad stood entitled to get 57.5 acres of land. The tharwad had leased out 1630 acres of land to the Pullengode Rubber and Produce Company Limited as per a lease agreement dated 1.5.1910. The land that was allotted to the several members of the tharwad, pursuant to the final decree in the partition suit, formed part of the land that was demised to the Pullengode Rubber and Produce Company Limited. A portion of this land was unplanted forest land which was declared as a private forest by the 1st respondent. On account of the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, read with the provisions of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the petitioners, although allotted 57.5 acres each pursuant to the final decree in the partition suit referred to above, could not actually hold the entire extent of 57.5 acres each since, by the provisions of the aforementioned enactments, they could hold only an equal extent of land as was permitted under the aforementioned enactments.

3. In 1974, the petitioners approached the 1st respondent invoking the provisions of the Kerala Private Forests (Exemption from Vesting) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules), through separate applications, for the grant of exemption for the different extents of land that were allotted to them and which formed part of the land that was declared as a private forest by the 1st respondent. In exercise of his powers under Section 3(3) of the Act read with Rules 3 and 6 of the Rules, the 1st respondent considered the applications preferred by the petitioners for exemption and found 65 acres of land to be eligible for the exemption in terms of Section 3(3) of the Act. He accordingly passed Ext.P1 order dated 12.2.1976, wherein, the total extent of land that was exempted, as also the separate parcels of land that were ordered to be returned to the petitioners, were separately indicated. It was observed that the parties would identify the land which they wanted returned and that these would be surveyed and demarcated at their costs.

4. When no action was taken by the forest authorities pursuant to Ext.P1 order of the 1st respondent, the petitioners approached this Court through O.P.No.5204/1981, which was disposed by Ext.P2 judgment directing the 1st respondent to demarcate the properties, ordered to be exempted in favour of the petitioners, within a period of six months. It is relevant to note that, in the meanwhile, disputes arose between the Forest Department and the Pullengode Rubber and Produce Company Limited regarding the identity and extent of land that was vested with the Government. This assumes significance because the area that was ordered to be restored to the petitioners by Ext.P1 order also formed part of the disputed area. The dispute raised by Pullengode Rubber and Produce Company Limited eventually reached the Supreme Court where an order of status quo came to be passed pending disposal of the civil appeals. In view of the status quo order passed by the Supreme Court, the direction in Ext.P2 judgment could not be complied with by the forest authorities, who filed Ext.P3 Me