Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2700
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. Jayachandran, J.
Padmakumar - Petitioner
Versus
Secretary To Government Forest And Wild Life Department And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) NO.276 OF 2025
Decided On : 24-09-2025
For the Petitioner: Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty, Sri.Mathew Devassi
For the Respondent: Shri.T.P.Sajan, Spl. G.P., Shri.Rajeev V.K., Sc, Shri.S.Vinod Bhat, Amicus Curiae
A 'reputed owner or occupier' under Section 6(2) of the Kerala Forest Act includes those with lesser rights than absolute ownership, necessitating their right to notice before land is classified as Reserved Forest.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Forest Act, 1961 - Section 6(2) - Interpretation of 'known or reputed owner or occupier' - The petitioner claimed possession of land once owned by his father, contested by respondents stating he was a trespasser - Court found the petitioner as a known or reputed owner/occupier requiring notice under the Act, emphasizing strict compliance with statutory requirements for notice - Previous decisions from other High Courts were distinguished on grounds of non-binding nature in this context. (Paras 1, 5, 8, 11, 15)
(B) Natural Justice - Right to notice and opportunity to be heard before potential declaration of land as Reserved Forest is imperative and cannot be bypassed. (Paras 12, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s father had been in possession of land assessed and developed with a residential building, which was proposed to be declared as Reserved Forest without notice being served upon him.
Findings of Court:
The requirement to serve notice is mandatory, and any failure in compliance results in invalidation of resultant orders under the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to notice under Section 6(2) of the Kerala Forest Act as a known or reputed owner or occupier.
Ratio Decidendi: The court recognized that a 'reputed owner' does not equate to an 'absolute owner' and stressed the necessity of notice for those who may have lesser rights but sufficient legitimacy in occupation or ownership.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; proceedings against the petitioner stayed until notice and hearing are provided as per statutory requirements.
JUDGMENT :
C. Jayachandran, J.
The issue involved in this Writ Petition is with respect to the interpretation of Section 6(2) of the Kerala Forest Act , 1961 ('the 1961 Act', for short). To be more precise, what is the ambit and scope of the expression 'known or reputed owner or occupier' as employed in Section 6(2), is the question involved.
2. The facts:-
The petitioner would claim that his father, late Vasu Ashary, was in absolute possession of 1 hectare and 9 ares of land in Re-Survey No.44/9 in Block no.4 of Vagamon Village. The said Vasu Ashary also constructed a residential building in the said property, which was assessed by the Elappara Grama Panchayat and issued with Building No.IV/316. Vasu Ashary died on 26.11.2005, as evident from Ext.P2 death certificate. This Court discounts the minor discrepancy in the name of petitioner's father as Vasu Ashary, as pleaded in this Writ Petition and Vasu Achary, as reflected in some of the documents, including Ext.P2. Ext.P4 is a receipt evidencing payment of property tax in the name of Vasu Ashary. Ext.P6 - a document heavily relied on by the petitioner - is the field register of the property comprised in the Re-Survey No.44/9 of Block No.4 of Vagamon Village. The property is shown as a 'purayidam' and the name of the person in occupation is shown as Vasu Ashary. The extent is 1 hectare and 9 ares. Ext.P6 field register refers to the fact that the said Vasu Ashary is residing in that premises, upon constructing a house. As regards the manner in which the said Vasu Ashary came into possession of the property, the pleadings are contained in paragraph no.8 of the Writ Petition. Vasu Ashary was an employee in K.L.D. Board at Vagamon and he was residing in the subject property, along with his family in the residential Building bearing No.IV/316. Though, Vasu Ashary had applied for issuance of Patta before the Taluk Office, Peerumedu, under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, which has been numbered as C21666/1999, he could not complete the above the proceedings. Nevertheless, the said Vasu Ashary and upon his death, the petitioner and other legal heirs of Vasu Ashary are in settled possession of the subject property. The petitioner's grievance now is that, the above said 1 hectare and 9 ares of land is sought to be declared as a Reserve Forest, for which purpose, necessary survey has already been done, the plan of which is produced at Ext.P5.
3. The essential contention raised is that the petitioner was not issued with a notice under Section 6(2) of the 1961 Act, wherefore, the rest of the proceeding culminating in Ext.P11 Order, in terms of Section 10 of the 1961 Act, is bad in law. The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Certiorari quashing Ext.P11, as also, a declaration that the subject property having an extent of 1 hectare and 9 ares is liable to be excluded from the scope of Ext.P8 proclamation/ notification issued under Section 6 of the 1961 Act. The petitioner also seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent/Forest Settlement Officer to reconsider Ext.P11, after hearing the claim of the petitioner. It appears from the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, it is this relief which is being pressed before this Court.
4. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is seriously opposed by the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest). On facts, it is the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has another extent of land, which is quite nearby to the subject extent of 1 hectare and 9 ares, and the building number made mention of in the Writ Petition is the number of the residential building situated in that land. The respondents would contend that the petitioner is a trespasser and hence not liable to be considered as a 'known or reputed owner or occupier', for the purpose of issuance of notice under Section 6(2) of the 1961 Act. The learned Special Government Pleader relied on a Bench decision of the Tr
