Point of Law: High Court, therefore, while so directing exceeded its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution. Indeed, the High Court in granting such relief, had virtually converted the writ petition into a civil suit and itself to a civil court.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to issue a no-objection certificate to the petitioner to pay the basic land tax in respect of his properties, covered under Exhibits P1, P2, P3 and P4.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of properties owned and possessed by the petitioner as per Exhibit P1 assignment deed.

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents 4 and 5 to accept the basic land tax in respect of the properties of the petitioner covered under Exhibit P1 assignment deed, without insisting for a no-objection certificate from the forest officials.”

2. The basic facts discernible from the writ petition are as follows:

According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner in possession of five acres of landed property in Survey No. 1/Part of Vettilappara Village in Malappuram District; the petitioner has purchased the said properties by way of Ext.P1 sale-deed No. 4591/2003 of the Office of the Sub Registrar, Nilambur, dated 04.11.2013. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P2 Purchase Certificate No. 1001/1981 dated 30.04.1981 issued by the Land Tribunal, Nilambur, apparently in respect of the said property; that after purchase of the property, petitioner had paid the basic tax evident from Ext.P3 dated 11.11.2003 and the petitioner was issued with Ext.P4 possession certificate dated 11.11.2003 also, by the Village Officer, Pullippadam Village. It is the prime contention projected by the petitioner that when the petitioner approached for payment of the revenue tax after 2003, it was informed that the land tax could not be paid as the forest officials have proposed to notify the properties of the petitioner as an ecologically fragile land under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act 2003’) and therefore, the land tax cannot be accepted. The case of the petitioner is that, later the petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act regarding the properties notified under the ecologically fragile land in the Nilambur Forest Division. Accordingly, Ext.P5 information dated 08.04.2014 was given by the Public Information Officer listing out the properties declared as ecologically fragile land in the Nilambur North Forest Division and Ext.P6 map showing the properties declared as ecologically fragile land. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention advanced by the petitioner is that it is very clear from the documents that the property belonging to the petitioner has not been declared as an ecologically fragile land by the authorities and thereupon, petitioner approached the Village Officer, Pullippadam to pay the land tax; however, it is informed that the land has to be verified. It is the further submission of the petitioner that on verification, it is found that the land belonging to the petitioner falls within the neighbouring village in the re-survey and the petitioner was directed to approach the Village Officer, Vettilappara Village, Malappuram District for the payment of land tax. According to the petitioner, on verification, the Village Officer, Vettilappara was satisfied that the land falls within the Vettilappara Village and therefore, the petitioner has necessarily to correct the original deed and also to pay land tax to the fifth respondent, Village Officer. However, when the petitioner approached the Tahsildar, Ernad Taluk, Manjeri, Malappuram District - the fourth respondent, petitioner was informed that since the boundaries of the property in question is forest land or the unassigned rocky land or the ecologically fragile land ‘no objection certificate’ from