State authorities are bound to restore land declared as protected private property in final judicial proceedings where the State concedes, via survey reports and formal affidavits, that the property is not vested forest and is free from third-party encroachments.

D r. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

This writ appeal impugns the judgment dated 23.05.2019 of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.9973 of 2013.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are as follows:

The appellant/company is stated to be engaged in the business of rubber and tea plantation. In 1975, when a part of the appellant's land was demarcated and notified as private forest for the purposes of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, the appellant filed O.A.No.322 of 1976 before the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad, in respect of two plots of land that had been declared as vested forests. The first plot consists of 27.36 hectares of land [67.57 acres] in Survey No.808/1, 808/2, 809, 1037/1 and 1032 of Peruvanthanam Village. The details of the second plot are not relevant for the purpose of this writ appeal for, it is the admitted case before us that the appellant had suffered an adverse order in respect of the second plot, and the appellate proceedings against the said order upto the Supreme Court also confirmed the said position. As regards the first plot detailed above, initially the Forest Tribunal had allowed the application preferred by the appellant and held the plot in question to be not a private forest liable for vesting. That order of the Tribunal was however reversed in an appeal carried by the Government before this Court and the matter was remanded to the Forest Tribunal for a fresh consideration. Although the appellant filed an SLP against the said order of this Court, the same came to be dismissed.

3. In the de novo proceedings before the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad, the Tribunal, by an order dated 28.10.1988, dismissed O.A.No.322 of 1976, to the extent it pertained to the aforesaid plot of land. The said dismissal order was impugned by the appellant herein before this Court in M.F.A.No.176 of 1989, when this Court, by Ext.P2 judgment, allowed the claim of the appellant and held the aforesaid plot ad measuring 67.57 acres to be private forest that was not vested with the State. The SLP preferred by the State before the Supreme Court in respect of this plot of land was also dismissed by the Supreme Court by Ext.P3 judgment. Consequently, the appellant stood entitled to a restoration of the said extent of 67.57 acres of land in Survey No.808/1, 808/2, 809, 1037/1 and

1032 of Peruvanthanam Village.

4. When the representations preferred by the appellant seeking restoration of the land free from encroachments did not yield any response from the State Government, the appellant approached this Court through the writ petition aforementioned seeking a restoration of possession of the land free from encroachment. In the writ petition, a statement was filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent Divisional Forest Officer, Kottayam pursuant to a direction issued by this Court on

21.03.2019, wherein, the State Government took a rather curious stand that the plot comprising of 67.57 acres had not been surveyed or notified as vested forest by the State Government, and that the said land was always in the possession of the appellant/company. While the said statement was factually erroneous, more so because the entire litigation that was initiated at the instance of the appellant/company was based on the stand of the State Government that the above extent of land was in fact notified as vested forest, the learned Single Judge, who considered the writ petition, relied upon the said statement to find against the appellant while dismissing the writ petition. In particular, with regard to the aspect of encroachment into the property, pointed out by the appellant/writ petitioner, the learned Judge found as follows at paragraph