Kerala High Court
Swaminadha Raja Varma vs State Of Kerala on 23 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Friday, the 23rd day of December 2022 / 2nd Pousha, 1944
WP(C) NO. 19015 OF 2016(B)
PETITIONER:
SWAMINADHA RAJA VARMA, AGED 57 YEARS, S/0 PARAMESWARA SWAMINATHAN
NAMBOOTHIRI, 'SIVASAKTHI' H/NO:7/267, MELVATTOOR.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 312.
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695 001.
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM,
PIN-686 001.
3. THAHSILDAR, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KANJIRAPPALLY.P.O, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT-686507.
4. *CORRECTED(DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE P.O.
KOTTAYAM - 686 507) * DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, CIVIL STATION,
COLLECTORATE P.O. KOTTAYAM - 686 002. (CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DTD.
22-12-22 IN I.A. 2/2022 IN WP(C) 19015/2016).
5. VILLAGE OFFICER, ERUMELI SOUTH VILLAGE, ERUMELI.P.O, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN-686509.
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to direct the 4th respondent not to enter in the property as
Sy.No.379/1C-2 of Erumely South Village and not to prevent the petitioner
from entering in to his property.
This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SENIOR ADVOCATE) along with & SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI,
Advocate for the petitioner, the GOVERNMENT PLEADER for R1 and SPECIAL
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for R4, the court passed the following:
AMIT RAWAL, J.
=================
W.P.(C) No.19015 of 2016
=====================
Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2022
ORDER
Petitioner is alleged have claim ownership on the
property bearing survey No.379/1 C-2 in Erumeli South Village
on the basis of the will executed by his father Parameswara
Namboothiri dated 18.08.1995. The executant of the will is
alleged to have obtained the property by a will dated
15.04.1977 executed by one of the brother of the father
Neelakandan Namboothiri of Cheruvathi Illam, Elanji Village,
Muvattupuzha Taluk, Ernakulam. In respect of the
aforementioned land, a civil suit bearing No.46/1914 was filed
by the Karanavar of Koickal family before the District Court,
Kottayam which was declared to be absolute ownership. State
of Kerala preferred an appeal bearing No.294/1921 before the
Trvancore High Court which upheld the judgment. In the
meantime, claim petitions were filed for the same very
property of Koickal family by claim Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of 1955
against the notification declaring as reserve forest. Forest
W.P.(C) No.19015 of 2016
Settlement Officer in 1969 dismissed the claims. Matter
was taken before the 1st Addl. District Court and it was set
aside, matter reached this Court in MSA.1/1981 and before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, judgment of High Court was
set aside and the matter was reamanded. MSA No.1/1981
is pending consideration. Petitioner claimed to be owner.
In support of the contention paragraph No.16 of the
counter affidavit of the Divisional Forest Officer, Kottayam
dated 07.06.2022 has been relied where it has been
admitted that no final notification under Section 19 of the
Kerala Forest Act had been made.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that though the title vests with the
petitioner but even if the land has been declared as forest
they are entitled to claim compensation which would be
subject matter in a separate litigation, but for the time
being it not ascertained whether the land in survey laying
claim thereon vest in the forest or private land and
therefore as an interim measure, prays that the land be
demarcated and with a further prayer of dispossession and
W.P.(C) No.19015 of 2016
mutation.
3. On the other hand, Sri.Sunil, learned
Government Pleader opposed the aforementioned prayer
and submitted that MSA 81/1981, after the remand by the
Supreme Court, was partially allowed in favour of the State
of Kerala, the matter has again gone to the Supreme Court
and there is a status quo.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and appraised the paper book.
5. As regards the interim prayer as mentioned
above, I am of the view the interim prayer qua
dispossession as well as mutation is not possible at the
stage when it is yet to be ascertain whether the land
belongs to either the forest or the petitioner. But for
ascertaining the truthfulness regarding the extent of
ownership, I am of the view to narrow down the
controversy a demarcation of the land in dispute is
necessary.
Accordingly, I direct the respondents 2 and 4 to
conduct the demarcation in respect of Survey No.379/1 C-
W.P.(C) No.19015 of 2016
2 Erumeli, South Village by taking the assistance of
revenue records and officers as well as the physical
possession at the site and submit the report. Let the report
be submitted after two months.
Post on 14.02.2022.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE
nak
sa/131219sassssabs10.
23-12-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
