The court emphasized procedural fairness, allowing petitioners' request for property identification despite prior omissions, ensuring independent assessment of claims.

J U D G M E N T

Sathish Ninan, J. Order dismissing an application to remit the Commissioner's Report and Plan is under challenge in this original petition by the petitioners.

2. OA 358/1975 under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Vesting Act”) was allowed by the Tribunal as per order dated 13.07.1977 holding that the 12 acres scheduled to the petition is entitled for exemption under Section 3(2) of the Vesting Act.

3. Subsequently, portions of the property were assigned by the owner. The applicants who are assignees of portions, approached the Tribunal in IA 85/2020 claiming that there is mistake in the description of the property and seeking correction of the decree. A Commissioner was deputed to identify the property. The Commissioner filed a report and plan.

4. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application as IA 90/2023 praying for remitting the Commissioner's Report to identify the property with reference to the documents of title of the petitioners.

5. The Tribunal noticed that there was no such request before the Commissioner and that the attempt is only to protract the proceedings. Accordingly the application was dismissed.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader (Forests).

7. The petitioners claim to be assignees of portions of the property which is the subject matter of OA 358/1975. Their grievance is that the property obtained by them as per their assignment deeds were not identified by the Commissioner. As noted by the Tribunal though such a request was not made earlier or before the Commissioner, we do not find any reason to decline such prayer merely for the said reason. We are of the opinion that the request made by the petitioners are liable to be granted. However, we caution that, the mere fact that the property covered under the assignment deeds in favour of the petitioners are identified and if found to be different from the schedule property in OA 358/1975, that would not entail a conclusion that the scheduled description in IA is a mistake and it needs correction. The claim of the petitioner is to be considered independently by the Tribunal and shall not be merely on the basis of the identification of the property covered under the title/assignment deeds in favour of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the original petition is allowed. The order on IA 90/2023 will stand set aside and the IA will stand allowed. The Tribunal shall cause the Commissioner's Report and Plan to be remitted for identification as sought for in the application. However, as noticed supra the claim in the application for correction has to be decided independently by the Tribunal notwithstanding the identification of the property covered under the assignment deeds in favour of the petitioners. We request the Tribunal to expedite the proceedings.