IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH THURSDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 27947 OF 2021 PETITIONER:

SHABEER ALI P.H., AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. HANEEFA RAWTHER, SUHAIL COTTAGE, KALLARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-679608.

BY ADV ESM.KABEER RESPONDENTS:

1 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

2 THE FOREST RANGE OFICER, PALODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.

BY ADVS.

SHRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FOREST)

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3^rd day of March, 2022 The petitioner, who has applied for renewal of licence for conducting a Saw Mill, has approached this Court seeking to direct the 1^st respondent to renew the licence considering Ext.P5 application.

2. The petitioner states that he submitted Ext.P5 application before the 1^st respondent for renewal of Forest Licence for conducting a Saw Mill. The petitioner submitted Exts.P7 and P10 documents along with the application for renewal.

3. The petitioner would contend that Ext.P1 judgment would show that the petitioner's son is the owner of the property. He has executed an agreement with the petitioner for conducting the business of Saw Mill for a period of five years. The 1^st respondent has issued Ext.P11 communication requiring the petitioner to submit certain documents to enable renewal of licence. By Ext.P12, the 1^st respondent has directed the Forest Range Officer to ascertain the genuineness of the ownership of the documents relating to the land in which the Saw Mill is situated by perusing the title deed of the Kallara Sub Registrar Office.

4. The petitioner states that it was a running saw mill and the delay in renewing the licence has put the petitioner into great difficulties. It is evident from Ext.P2 agreement dated 07.09.2021 that the petitioner's son is the owner of the property. In the circumstances, there is no rhyme or reason for the respondents not to renew the licence, contended the petitioner.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) entered appearance and contested the writ petition.

The learned Special Government Pleader pointed out that by Ext.P11 communication, the petitioner's wife was required to produce certain documents including documents in proof of title. Without proper examination of the claim as to the title of the property and of the saw mill, a renewal cannot be granted. By Ext.P12, the 1^st respondent has required the 2^nd respondent to inspect the relevant title deeds after receipt of a report from the Forest Range Officer, contended the learned Special Government Pleader.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader.

7. Ext.P1 judgment in O.S. No.571 of 2008 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Nedumangadu would indicate that there are some disputes between the petitioner and his wife and there was an agreement between the husband and wife, whereunder the wife has relinquished the claim over the property on which the saw mill is situated. Though Ext.P1 is based on a compromise agreement, as long as it is not challenged legally, it will have the force of law.

8. Ext.P2 is an agreement whereby the petitioner's son has permitted the petitioner to run the saw mill in the land owned by the son, for a period of five years. Ext.P3 is the earlier Licence for saw mill, granted by the Divisional Forest Officer. Ext.P4 is the D and O Licence. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P8 possession certificate as well as Ext.P9 ownership certificate.

9. Therefore, in view of the documents produced by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that a final decision on the application for renewal submitted by the petitioner should be taken as expeditiously as possible. The saw mill is lying idle for the last so many days, contends the petitioner. In view of the facts