This writ petition was originally filed by 14 petitioners. Petitioners 3 to 10 and 12 to 14 were subsequently deleted from the party array on their request, and this writ petition is pursued on behalf of petitioners 1, 2 and 11.
2. Dispute is with respect to assignment of various extents of land which are allegedly in occupation of the petitioners. Steps were initiated by the revenue authorities for assignment of the lands occupied by the petitioners. Based on the applications for grant of 'pattayam', various formalities were completed and a list of eligible persons was forwarded by the District Collector to the Central Government for approval. The petitioners have approached various authorities in different representations from time to time seeking to expedite the matter. As evidenced from Exts.P13 & P14, they were issued with communications intimating that the grant of 'pattayam' will be considered as and when clearance is obtained from the Central Government. Subsequently the Government issued Ext.P16 order intimating about the decision to assign lands situated in the area in question covered under Sy. No.147 of Ollukkara Village, to those persons eligible under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, to the extent permissible under the relevant Rules applicable to Panchayat areas or the Corporation areas, as the case may be. In the said proceedings it is mentioned that, after assignment of land to the extent permissible any land possessed by the petitioners over and above the permissible limit will be recovered for the purpose of assignment to other eligible persons.
3. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P16 mainly contending that the land in occupation of the petitioners are not liable to be distributed to anybody else, since it is vested forest and not revenue puramboke. In other words, contention is to the effect that the petitioners have applied only for regularisation of their occupation under the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of Occupations of Forest Land) Rules, 1993 and all the formalities for assignment were completed only under the said Rules. The stand now taken in Ext.P16 as if the land in question is revenue puramboke is totally misconceived. The reason mentioned in Ext.P16 that an extent of 500 Acres of land comprised in Sy. No.147 of Ollukkara village was transferred to the Revenue Department during 1979, is not true ant correct. The report of the District Collector referred to for making such an observation is not true and correct and it is not supported by any valid documents, is the contention.
4. Question mooted for decision is as to whether the petitioners are eligible to get the land in their possession assigned under the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of Occupations of Forest Land) Rules, 1993 or as to whether they are entitled for assignment only under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, subject to the limits prescribed under the said Rules, applicable to the Panchayat and Corporation area. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent it is stated that as per records of the Ollukkara village a total extent of 1211.29 Acres of land comprised in Sy. No.147 remains classified as “Reserve Forest Puramboke”. Out of the above an extent of about 500 Acres was recommended for transfer by letter issued by the DFO, Thrissur dated 07-02-1996. Further an extent of 225.03 Acres of land was recommended to be assigned in favour of 'Damiyan Institute'. Therefore it is mentioned that, it has to be construed that altogether an extent of 500 + 225.03 Acres out of 1211.29 Acres comprised in Sy. No.147 of Ollukkara village was converted as 'Revenue Puramboke'. Therefore it is contended that the assignment which now sought for by the petitioners can be dealt with only by construing the land remaining as revenue puramboke.
5. The petitioners had produced Ext.P18 which is the copy of a notification issued by the erstwhile Government of Cochin, as early as on 9th Karkidakam 1084 ME. It shows that a declaration under Section XII of the Cochin Forest Regulation III of 1080 is made declaring the property described in the schedule thereunder as Reserve Forest. Contention of the petitioners is that the property in their possession forms part of property covered under the said notification. It is also contended that, despite the letter referred by the respondents which was issued by the DFO in the year 1994, no steps were taken to declare any portion of the land as ceased to be forest land after undergoing formalities contemplated in Section 26 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.
6. Claim of the petitioners is that, they are entitled to get regularisation of occupation with respect to the entire land, under the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of Occupations of Forest Land) Rules 1993. Going by Ext.P16 it is evident that the Government have proceeded on the basis that the land in question is revenue puramboke. It is clear from Ext.P16 that the decision is taken based on a report submitted by the District Collector. But the question as to whether the land remains as a reserve forest or whether it was converted as revenue puramboke at any point of time, has not been considered based on any adjudication, looking into the relevant records and materials. Therefore this court is of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-consideration by the State Government. If it is found that the petitioners' claim is sustainable, naturally the Government have to take further steps for regularisation of the occupation. Interest of justice will be served by directing the Government to take an appropriate decision in the matter with reasonable opportunity afforded to the petitioners, taking note of all available materials, including Ext.P18 notification.
7. Therefore this writ petition is disposed of by quashing Ext.P16 to the extent it applies to petitioners 1,2, and 11. The Government will re-consider claim of those petitioners for regularisation of their occupation based on provisions contained in the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of Occupations of Forest Land) Rules 1993. A decision with respect to their eligibility shall be taken after affording opportunity of personal hearing, taking note of the observations contained herein above, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
AMG/MJL True copy Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE P.A. to Judge