The petitioners in these writ petitions have approached this Court claiming that, the land held by them would not form part of the notification issued by the Government under the Kerala Private Forest Vesting and Assignment Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and also consequently seeks a direction to the Revenue Officials to accept basic tax pertaining to the said lands from the petitioners. 2. The land claimed by the petitioners are situated in Pullipadam Village, Nilambur Taluk in Malappuram District. According to the petitioners, the properties are not private forests and also not vested with the Government under the Act. The petitioners would submit that, their assignees were took in possession based on the permission granted by the Government of Madras. They assigned the property in favour of the Mampad Timber Estate Pvt. Ltd. The petitioners also submit that, the Revenue Officials refused to accept the land tax from 1962 onwards and there was no dispute in the title of the property. However, the Sub Collector has cancelled the Thandaper Registration by separate order. The petitioners have produced enormous documents before this Court to establish their title and claim that the land would not W.P.(C) Nos.6225 & 17941 of 2006 2 form part of the notification under the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners also prayed that, if a joint inspection is conducted by the Forest Department with the Revenue Officials, certainly, it can be borne out that, the land would not form part of the notification.
3. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that, the land in question is a part of Nedumcheri Malavaram Vested Forest and governed by the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949 and it cannot be released to anyone without sanction of the District Collector. It is further submitted that, the land is forming part of vested forest area coming under the part of VF Block having a total extent of 1376.16 hectors and which has not been cultivated with any kind of agricultural crops.
4. The question that, whether the land would form part of the notification or it could be treated as vested forest, is a matter which cannot be decided by this Court by invoking power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners have an efficacious remedy before the Forest Tribunal under Section 8 of the Act.
5. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that, if the petitioners approach the Forest Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Forest Tribunal shall consider the claim of the petitioners within a further period of one year. However, if the petitioners fail to move the Forest Tribunal within the stipulated period, the petitioners will not be entitled for W.P.(C) Nos.6225 & 17941 of 2006 3 the benefit of this judgment, as the petitioners claim would be barred by limitation.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.
AV