Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2226
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
Youssuf.A, S/o Late Ahammedkutty - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(C) No. 18913 of 2022
Decided on : 15-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : ADV SMT.NISHA JOHN
For the Respondent: SPL.GP- T P SAJAN
The court emphasizes timely compliance with its past judgments regarding land ownership and affirms the petitioner’s rights contingent on proof of sole legal heir status.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 - Section 8 - Writ Petition for restoration of land as per earlier judgment and direction to restore land following delay - Claim of the petitioner regarding restoration of land has been pending for almost 35 years since the court's earlier order - Court directs restoration to the petitioner if he proves he is the only legal heir. (Paras 6, 7, 8)
(B) Appeals - Legal heirs and the need to implead necessary parties; resolution of conflicts in claims regarding land ownership is highlighted in the judgment. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner seeks restoration of 2.66 acres of land that was allowed per earlier judgment but not restored. The Forest Department has cited complexities regarding land classified as vested forest.
Findings of Court:
The court reiterates the importance of following through on earlier judgments and ensuring rightful restitution of property.
Issues: Primary issue revolves around the delay in restoring property ownership rights post-court ruling.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the delay in compliance with its judgment is unacceptable and mandates action within a specified timeframe if the petitioner proves to be the sole legal heir.
Result: Petition allowed with directives for restoration of land.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. restoration of property by law. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. claim conflicts and non-impleaded parties require resolution. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. delays in compliance with judicial orders are unacceptable. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. judgment directs restoration contingent on proof of sole heir status. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to restore the land as per Ext.P1 judgment to the petitioner, without any delay.
2. Petitioner's father Shri.Ahammedkutty, filed OA No.487/1976, before the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad under Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act 1971, challenging vesting of his land having an extent of 7.35 Acres in Palakkad. The Tribunal allowed OA No.487/1976 in part, allowing the claim with respect to 2.66 Acres out of the 7.35 Acres claimed in the original application. An appeal was preferred by the Forest department as MFA No.472 of 1987 which has ultimately dismissed as per Ext.P1 confirming the order passed by the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad.
3. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that though the appeal was dismissed as early as 1990 as per Ext.P1 judgment, the direction in the judgment has not been complied with by restoring the property to the petitioner. On the death of his father, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and requested to restore the land allowed as per Ext.P1 to the legal heir of Shri.Ahammedkutty without any delay, the petitioner was informed that it is only due to the non-completion of the survey and preparation of the sketch that the property could not be restored. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P8 sketch approved by the Assistant Director of Forest Mini Survey. Except for the prepared Ext.P8 sketch, no report or any proceedings were initiated to restore the land to the petitioner till date. It is in the said circumstance, that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the above writ petition.
4. The stand taken by the Forest Department is that as per the order passed by the Forest Tribunal and confirmed in appeal by this Court as per Ext.P1 judgment, an extent of 2.66 acres was found to be not vested forest. Out of the 2.66 acres an extent of 0.5262 hectares (1.30 acres) in Survey No.456/13pt.,is lying contiguous to Vested Forests consisting of natural vegetation has been vested in the Government as per the provisions of the Kerala Forest(Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 and a proposal for notifying the same has been submitted to the Chief Forest Conservator, Eastern Circle, Palakkad as per Ext.R2(a). As regards 0.3684 hectares (0.91 Acres) in Survey No.457/2pt,3pt,4pt, out of the 2.66 Acres allowed to the OA applicant could be restored to the legal heir of the OA applicant Shri.Ahammedkutty and that the Assistant Director, Forest Mini Survey, Kozhikode has submitted the approved sketch and restoration proposal of the above land and the same was submitted to the Custodian of Vested Forests by the DFO Nenmara on 18.02.2025. 45 cents allowed by the Court in Re-survey No.451/4,15 is outside the periphery of Vested Forest and not surveyed or demarcated as Vested Forests, and therefore, a formal restoration is not required for this land.
5. In the additional counter affidavit, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that a further clarification is required regarding conflict of claim in respect of the said property and submits that the petitioner herein is one of the children of the OA applicant and other legal heirs are not impleaded as necessary parties. The conflict of claim is regarding the lands claimed by the writ petitioner and his relatives in OA No.43/2020 and OA No.97/2020 before the Forest Tribunal Palakkad, which includes the land for which restoration is sought as per the petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is true that an O.A has been preferred by the petitioner as
