SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 38757

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
C.A.ARIF – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/14286/2020



Advocates:
SRI.P.S.SIDHARTHAN

A challenge to a confiscation order under the Kerala Forest Act must follow the defined statutory appeal process rather than a direct writ petition.

Headnote:

Forest - Confiscation of Trees - Kerala Forest Act - Sections 61, 61D

Fact of the Case:

The petition challenges a confiscation order claiming the trees are not government property as they are not listed in the patta under Kerala Land Assignment Rules.

Finding of the Court:

The court concluded that the challenge against the confiscation order should be pursued through defined statutory appeal processes, rather than through a writ petition under Article 226.

Issues: Whether the court can entertain a challenge against the confiscation order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: Challenges to administration orders like confiscation should follow prescribed statutory remedies and not be addressed directly via constitutional writs.

Final Decision: Writ petition closed, preserving the petitioner's right to appeal under the Kerala Forest Act.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

i) declare that the trees which are not mentioned in the schedule of the patta under Kerala Land Assignment rules do not belonged to the government.

ii) call for records leading to Ext.P3 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the same.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P3 order of confiscation has been passed without considering the petitioner's contentions that the reasoned questions are not mentioned in the schedule to the patta issued under the Land Assignment Rules and that they do not belong to the government. It is submitted that the order passed without considering the contentions is liable to be quashed.

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that the essential challenge is against Ext.P3 order which is an order of confiscation issued under Section 61 of the Kerala Forest Act , 1961. It is submitted that the said order is subject toan appeal in terms of Section 61 D of the Act. It is submitted that a further remedy of revision to this Court is also provided in terms of the Act.

5. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the challenge against Ext.P3 order raised before this Court under article 226 of the constitution of India cannot be considered by this Court. This writ petition is therefore closed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P3 order in appropriate proceedings in terms of section 61 D of the Kerala Forest Act .

Sd/-

Anu Sivaraman, Judge sj APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PATTA NO.LA(P) 31/77 PAZHAYANNUR DATED 18.01.79 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER DATED 08.07.2019 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2020 OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN

2020(2) KHC 383.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.U3/197/2019 REV. DATED 11/03/2020.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF FORM NO.6 OF THE KERALA LAND ASSIGNMENT (REGULARIZATION OF OCCUPATION OF FOREST LANDS PRIOR TO

1.1.1977) SPECIAL RULES 1993.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S TO JUDGE

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top