IMPORTANT POINTS:
Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the proceedings that may be taken against any person, can be taken against any other person claiming under him as well--In the case of a pre-emption decree, the decree could be executed by an assignee of the property in view of the mandate under Section 146 of the CPC--The assignor or a legal representative is bound by the decree of injunction obtained against the assignor or predecessor in interest.

Ramachandra Menon, J.

Right to conduct a sawmill, in the property concerned, is the subject matter of dispute. When the owner of the property contends that he is having all the requisite licenses and has been operating the unit as above, the rival party [nearby inhabitant] contends that the licence was obtained in a fraudulent manner availing the concession given to the units which were functioning before 30.10.2002; whereas the owner of the property admittedly purchased the land and building situated therein only in the year 2010 and no sawmill was in existence at any point of time. As it stands so, the law laid down by a Full Bench of the Apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and others [(2002) 9 SCC 502 = 2002 (9) Scale 81] was to be given effect to and if at all any licence was to be given/obtained, it was to be based on a new application and only on satisfying the requirements/credentials specified in this regard.

2. Obviously, the two appeals arise from the common judgment whereby two different writ petitions filed by the opposite sides were considered together and disposed of. Writ Appeal No. 2239 of 2015 filed by the appellant/objector/nearby inhabitant is to the extent he is aggrieved of the direction given by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4460 of 2014 in favour of the sawmill owner; whereas other appeal [W.A. No. 1746 of 2015] has been preferred by the 'Owner of the Sawmill', to the extent he is aggrieved. W.A. No.2239 of 2015 is treated as the lead case and the parties and proceedings are referred to as given therein. Rival parties are referred to as the 'owner' [owner of the saw mil] and the 'objector' [nearby inhabitant] for convenience of reference.

3. Heard Sri. E. K. Nandakumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent in W.A. No. 2239 of 2018 [owner], who happens to be the appellant in other appeal [W.A. No. 1746 of 2015]; Mr. James Kurien, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. 2239 of 2015 [objector], who happens to be the first respondent in the other appeal. We heard Mr. Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned special Government Pleader appearing for the Forest Department; Sri. Siby Chenappady, the learned standing counsel for the Local Authority and also Mr. T. Naveen, the learned standing counsel for the Pollution Control Board.

4. The 'owner' of the property purchased an extent of 27 cents of land comprised in Re-survey Nos.502/4; 502/5; 502/6 and 502/7 along with a building and electrical fittings [including the right on the deposit made with the Electricity Board], as per Ext. P1 sale deed dated 10.03.2010. It is stated that a wood furniture unit was in existence in the said property, which however had become defunct even years before the purchase as above. Nothing is discernible from Ext.P1 sale deed as to the existence of any such unit or as to the purchase of machinery stated as installed therein. After effecting the purchase as above; the 'owner' with intent to start a sawmill, made an application before the Local Authority. Ext.P2 is the licence issued by the Local Authority on 25.03.2010 with the validity period of just 'seven days' i.e. till 31.03.2010, subject to the conditions mentioned therein. It is stated that the validity of the licence came to be extended further on 06.05.2013, till 31.03.2014, as revealed from Ext. P2 (a). The 'Owner' approached the Pollution Control Board and obtained Ext. P3 Consent to Operate on 03.09.2011, which was valid till 30.06.2014, subject to the conditions imposed therein. Ext. P4 is the licence dated 06.04.2013 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kottayam in 'Form No. II A' in favour of the sawmill unit [as if it were a unit existing prior to 30.10.2002], subject to the conditions stipulated therein.

5. Different complaints were raised against running of the sawmill from different corners. Taking note of the same, inspections were being conducted and instructions were being issued from