# VILLAGE OFFICER AND OTHERS v. CHUNAYAMAKKAL JOSEPH AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [2022] 3 S.C.R. 977
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-01-19
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 207 of 2022
- **Bench:** M. R. Shah, B. V. Nagarathna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/village-officer-and-others-v-chunayamakkal-joseph-and-another-36056
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 -
ss. 2(f), 3, 4, 8 & 13 - Kerala Private Forest (Tribunal) Rules, 1972
- r.2A - Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961- s.5 - Area/land in question
was notified as vested Forest u/s. 4 of 1971 Act -Land Tribunal
issued Purchase Certificates in favour of respondents which was
later on cancelled - In writ Petition before High Court, respondents
submitted that when they are in possession of the properties in
question, the revenue authorities are obliged and bound to accept
the basic tax, leviable under the 1961 Act -Whether the High Court
erred in issuing the writ of mandamus directing the appellants to
accept the basic tax from respondents - Held: Respondent nos. 1 &
2 cannot claim any right over the disputed lands in question
considering the notification issued under Rule 2A declaring the
lands in question as vested forest land and no jenmam rights and/
or purchase certificates in favour of the respondents with respect
to the lands in question - Respondents cannot be said to be the
owner and/or cannot be said to be having a valid title in their favour
- Therefore, there is no question of any acceptance of basic tax
from respondents, leviable under the 1961 Act - High Court did not
properly appreciate the mala fide intention on the part of respondents
to pray for such a writ and indirectly establishing their right, title
and ownership over the disputed lands in question which, as such,
is declared as a vested forest land - Impugned judgment and order
set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The respondents filed writ petition before the
High Court for a writ of mandamus directing the revenue
authorities and more particularly the Village Officer to accept
the basic tax leviable under section 5 of the 1961 Act with respect
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
978
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
to the lands in question. The said writ petition was filed on the
premise that they are the owner and in possession of the disputed
land and jenmam rights and purchase certificates were issued in
their favour and that their possession and ownership have been
admitted by the Divisional Forest Officer in the two counter
affidavits filed before the Tribunal in OA Nos. 13 & 14 of 1986.
The High Court has accepted the same and issued a writ of
mandamus directing the revenue authorities - Village Officer to
accept the basic tax from the respondents. [Para 5.1][985-C-E]
2. However, the High Court has not at all appreciated and/
or considered the fact that as such the jenmam rights and
purchase certificates which were earlier issued in the years 1975
& 1979 in favour of the respondents have been cancelled by the
appropriate authority. The High Court has also not appreciated
the fact that as such a notification has been issued under Rule 2A
of the Kerala Private Forest (Tribunal) Rules, 1972 and the lands
in question have been declared as a "private forest land", vide
notification issued in the year 1977. The private respondent nos.
1 & 2 filed an application under Section 8 of the 1971 Act
challenging the said notification and vesting of the lands in
question as a private forest land and declaring the same as a
forest land, however, the said application came to be dismissed
by the Forest Tribunal, vide order dated 12.3.1990 and thereafter
there is no challenge to the aforesaid notification including the
land in question as a vested forest land. [Para 5.2][985-F-H; 986A]
3. The High Court has also not appreciated that in order
dated 16.4.2002 passed by the Land Tribunal cancelling the order
of assignment of jenmam rights and certificates of purchase, the
Land Tribunal specifically observed that OA applicants failed to
establish tenancy rights claimed by them and the survey plan
clearly shows that the lands in question are covered by the vested
forest land of the government. Thus, as per the Land Tribunal,
respondent nos. 1 & 2 cannot claim any right over the disputed
lands in question. Once the notification

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
977
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 977
977
VILLAGE OFFICER AND OTHERS
v.
CHUNAYAMAKKAL JOSEPH AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 207 of 2022)
JANUARY 19, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 -
ss. 2(f), 3, 4, 8 & 13 - Kerala Private Forest (Tribunal) Rules, 1972
- r.2A - Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961- s.5 - Area/land in question
was notified as vested Forest u/s. 4 of 1971 Act -Land Tribunal
issued Purchase Certificates in favour of respondents which was
later on cancelled - In writ Petition before High Court, respondents
submitted that when they are in possession of the properties in
question, the revenue authorities are obliged and bound to accept
the basic tax, leviable under the 1961 Act -Whether the High Court
erred in issuing the writ of mandamus directing the appellants to
accept the basic tax from respondents - Held: Respondent nos. 1 &
2 cannot claim any right over the disputed lands in question
considering the notification issued under Rule 2A declaring the
lands in question as vested forest land and no jenmam rights and/
or purchase certificates in favour of the respondents with respect
to the lands in question - Respondents cannot be said to be the
owner and/or cannot be said to be having a valid title in their favour
- Therefore, there is no question of any acceptance of basic tax
from respondents, leviable under the 1961 Act - High Court did not
properly appreciate the mala fide intention on the part of respondents
to pray for such a writ and indirectly establishing their right, title
and ownership over the disputed lands in question which, as such,
is declared as a vested forest land - Impugned judgment and order
set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The respondents filed writ petition before the
High Court for a writ of mandamus directing the revenue
authorities and more particularly the Village Officer to accept
the basic tax leviable under section 5 of the 1961 Act with respect
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
978
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
to the lands in question. The said writ petition was filed on the
premise that they are the owner and in possession of the disputed
land and jenmam rights and purchase certificates were issued in
their favour and that their possession and ownership have been
admitted by the Divisional Forest Officer in the two counter
affidavits filed before the Tribunal in OA Nos. 13 & 14 of 1986.
The High Court has accepted the same and issued a writ of
mandamus directing the revenue authorities - Village Officer to
accept the basic tax from the respondents. [Para 5.1][985-C-E]
2. However, the High Court has not at all appreciated and/
or considered the fact that as such the jenmam rights and
purchase certificates which were earlier issued in the years 1975
& 1979 in favour of the respondents have been cancelled by the
appropriate authority. The High Court has also not appreciated
the fact that as such a notification has been issued under Rule 2A
of the Kerala Private Forest (Tribunal) Rules, 1972 and the lands
in question have been declared as a "private forest land", vide
notification issued in the year 1977. The private respondent nos.
1 & 2 filed an application under Section 8 of the 1971 Act
challenging the said notification and vesting of the lands in
question as a private forest land and declaring the same as a
forest land, however, the said application came to be dismissed
by the Forest Tribunal, vide order dated 12.3.1990 and thereafter
there is no challenge to the aforesaid notification including the
land in question as a vested forest land. [Para 5.2][985-F-H; 986A]
3. The High Court has also not appreciated that in order
dated 16.4.2002 passed by the Land Tribunal cancelling the order
of assignment of jenmam rights and certificates of purchase, the
Land Tribunal specifically observed that OA applicants failed to
establish tenancy rights claimed by them and the survey plan
clearly shows that the lands in question are covered by the vested
forest land of the government. Thus, as per the Land Tribunal,
respondent nos. 1 & 2 cannot claim any right over the disputed
lands in question. Once the notification issued under Section 2A
of the 1972 Rules declaring the lands in question as vested forest
land stands and as on today there is no jenmam rights and/or
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
979
purchase certificates in favour of the respondents with respect
to the lands in question, respondent nos. 1 & 2 cannot be said to
be the owner and/or cannot be said to be having a valid title in
their favour and therefore there is no question of any acceptance
of basic tax from them, leviable under the 1961 Act. It appears
that by asking such a relief of writ of mandamus directing the
Village Officer/revenue authorities to accept the basic tax from
them, the original writ petitioners - respondents want to create
title/ownership in their favour. Any dispute with respect to the
forest land can only be settled under Section 8 of the 1971 Act.
Therefore, the High Court has not properly appreciated the mala
fide intention on the part of the respondents to pray for such a
writ of mandamus and indirectly establishing their right, title and
ownership over the disputed lands in question which, as such, is
declared as a vested forest land as far back as in the years 1975/
1977, pursuant to the notification issued under Rule 2A of the
1972 Rules. [Para 6][986-B-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 207 of
2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.2017 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No.29 of 2011.
Nishe Rajen Shonker, Ms. Anu K. Joy, Alim Anvar, Advs. for the
Appellants.
P. A. Noor Muhamed, Adv. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 29/2011, by which the Division Bench of
the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellants
herein and has not interfered with the judgment and order dated 8.7.2010
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition
(C) No.11252/2008, by which the learned Single Judge directed the
appellants herein to accept the basic tax from the respondents herein -
original writ petitioners under the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax
VILLAGE OFFICER AND OTHERS v. CHUNAYAMAKKAL JOSEPH
AND ANOTHER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
980
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the '1961 Act') with respect to the
lands in question, the Village Officer, Kannur District, Kerala and others
have preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as
under:
That the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act,
1971 (hereinafter referred to as the '1971 Act') came into force in the
year 1971. Section 3 of the 1971 Act provides that notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any
contract or other document, but subject to the provisions of sub-sections
(2) and (3), with effect on and from the appointed day, the ownership
and possession of all private forests in the State of Kerala shall by virtue
of the 1971 Act stand transferred to and vested in the Government free
from all encumbrances, and the right, title and interest of the owner or
any other person in any private forest shall stand extinguished. Section 4
of the 1971 Act provides that all vested forests are deemed Reserved
Forests.
2.1 The area/land in question was notified as vested Forest on
8.7.1977 under Section 4 of the 1971 Act. That the Land Tribunal,
Thaliparamba (hereinafter referred to as the 'Land Tribunal") issued
Purchase Certificates in favour of the respondents herein in respect of
12 acres of land in R.S. No. 292/1A in Naduvil village. That the Tahsildar,
Taliparamba and the Taluk Surveyor, Taliparamba inspected the schedule
property and surveyed the area. It was found that part of the property
involved in the patta was actually the vested forest in R.S. No. 292/1A
in Naduvil village. The survey sketch was produced before the Land
Tribunal in the objections filed by the Forest department before the Land
Tribunal.
2.2 Thereafter, the respondents herein filed OA Nos. 13/1986
and 14/1986 before the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Forest Tribunal'), constituted under the 1971 Act. A counter
affidavit was filed on behalf of the appellants to the aforesaid OAs before
the Forest Tribunal.
2.3 Based on the decision of the District Development Committee,
a site inspection of the property was conducted on 25.9.1989. It was
reported by the Deputy Collector vide letter dated 30.09.1989 addressed
to the District Collector that the survey rock mark has been destroyed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
981
and that a refixation of the boundary is absolutely necessary. The
respondents herein submitted a representation to the District Collector,
Kannur to remedy their grievance.
2.4 The OAs filed by the respondents herein came to be dismissed
by the Forest Tribunal vide order dated 12.3.1990. Thereafter as per the
decision of the District Development Committee, the Taluk Surveyor,
Taliparamba conducted a survey of the area on 30.5.1991 and re-fixed
the boundary of the land in the possession of the respondents and the
vested forest. Subsequently, notices were issued to the respondents on
23.12.1992 to show cause as to why the earlier decision granting Purchase
Certificates should not be re-opened/cancelled. The said notices were
challenged by the respondents before the High Court by way of O.P.
No. 2678/1993. The High Court disposed of the said OP No. 2678/1993
vide order dated 9.9.1998 directing the authorities to complete the
proceedings initiated.
2.5 Thereafter the Land Tribunal, vide order dated 16.4.2002,
cancelled the order of assignment of jenmam rights and the Purchase
Certificates issued to the respondents. The said order was passed in
O.A. No. 2745 of 1973 in a reopened case in the year 1992, which was
reopened in view of order dated 21.11.1990 of the Secretary, State Land
Board, Thiruvananthapuram to review the assignment of jenmam rights
ordered on vested forest land in O.A. No. 2745/1973 dated 29.6.1974 of
the Land Tribunal No. III, Taliparamba. Against the aforesaid order, the
respondents filed appeals before the appellate authority, which remanded
the matter to the Tribunal.
2.6 Subsequently, the respondents filed O.S. No. 2/2005 and 3/
2005 before the Munsiff's Court, Taliparamba seeking for a permanent
prohibitory injunction. The learned Munsiff's Court decreed the suits.
However, the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Munsiff's
Court were set aside by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Payyannur. The
second appeals filed against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge's
Court came to be dismissed by the High Court holding that the civil
Court has no jurisdiction as per Section 13 of the 1971 Act in respect of
matters which are to be decided by the Forest Tribunal constituted under
the said Act.
2.7 Instead of initiating any further proceedings under the 1971
Act, the respondents filed Writ Petition No. 11252/2008 before the learned
Single Judge of the High Court and prayed for a writ of mandamus
VILLAGE OFFICER AND OTHERS v. CHUNAYAMAKKAL JOSEPH
AND ANOTHER [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
982
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
directing original respondent no.1 - appellant no.1 herein to accept the
basic tax of the properties from them. Before the learned Single Judge,
it was the case on behalf of the respondents that they are in possession
of the disputed properties and that their possession has been admitted by
the authorities in their affidavits filed in earlier proceedings being O.A.
Nos. 13 & 14 of 1986. Therefore, it was submitted that when they are in
possession of the properties in question, the revenue authorities are obliged
and bound to accept the basic tax, leviable under the 1961 Act.
2.8 That the said writ petition was opposed by the Divisional Forest
Officer, Kannur. A written statement was filed by the Divisional Forest
Officer, Kannur wherein it was specifically stated that the respondents
herein have no right over the forest land vested with the government.
That vide judgment and order dated 8.7.2010, learned Single Judge
allowed the said writ petition and directed the Village Officer - appellant
no.1 herein to accept the basic tax from the respondents herein solely on
the basis of the affidavits filed in the earlier proceedings in OA Nos. 13
& 14 of 1986.
2.9 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and directing
appellant no.1 herein - Village Officer, Kannur to accept the basic tax
from the respondents payable under the 1961 Act, the appellants preferred
writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned
judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed
the said appeal by observing that the learned Single Judge has simply
directed to accept the basic tax from the respondents and that the learned
Single Judge has granted the relief by referring to the affidavits filed by
the State authorities filed in the earlier round of litigation in OA Nos. 13
& 14 of 1986 and therefore no interference of the appellate Court is
called for.
2.10 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing
the appeal and not interfering with the judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge directed the
revenue authorities to accept the basic tax from the respondents, the
Village Officer, Kannur and others have preferred the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has
vehemently submitted that both, the Division Bench of the High Court
as well as the learned Single Judge of the High Court have not appreciated
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
983
that the disputed land in question is vested with the forest department
and it is a private forest land for which a notification has been issued as
far back as in the year 1975 and therefore there is no question of accepting
any basic tax from the respondents herein.
3.1 It is submitted that both, the Division Bench of the High Court
as well as the learned Single Judge have materially erred in not
appreciating the fact that before the appropriate authority - Forest
Tribunal, the respondents have lost and the matter has not been carried
further. The jenmam rights and Purchase Certificates in respect of the
respondents have been cancelled and the same has attained finality.
3.2 It is submitted that so long as the land in question is vested
with the forest department pursuant to the notification issued under the
1971 Act and the jenmam rights and purchase certificates in favour of
the respondents herein have been cancelled, respondent nos. 1 & 2 herein
have no right, title or interest in the property in question and therefore
there is no question of accepting any basic tax from them.
3.3 It is further submitted that even the judgments and decrees
passed by the Munsiff's Court granting permanent injunction in favour
of the respondents have been set aside by the Subordinate Judge's Court,
which has been affirmed by the High Court in a second appeal holding
that civil Court has no jurisdiction and the dispute in respect of forest
land is to be decided by the Forest Tribunal constituted under the 1971
Act. It is submitted that thereafter no further proceedings are initiated
by the respondents herein under the provisions of the 1971 Act.
3.4 It is further submitted that the High Court has not properly
appreciated the mala fide intention on the part of the respondents in
seeking a writ of mandamus directing the revenue authorities to accept
the basic tax. It is submitted that the High Court ought to have appreciated
that by asking such a writ of mandamus, respondent nos. 1 & 2 wanted
to establish their right and ownership over the land which as such is vested
with the Government/Forest Department, pursuant to the notification
issued in the year 1975, by which the land in question is declared as a
forest land. It is therefore submitted that the High Court has committed a
grave error in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the revenue authorities
to accept the basic tax from respondent nos. 1 & 2 herein.
4. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents.
VILLAGE OFFICER AND OTHERS v. CHUNAYAMAKKAL JOSEPH
AND ANOTHER [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
984
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
4.1 It is submitted that the properties involved in this case are two
pieces of land of 12 acres each owned and possessed by the respondents,
who are the writ petitioners before the High Court.
4.2 It is submitted that the said properties originally belonged to
C.K. Kerala Varma Raja in Jenm. That the respondents initially obtained
possession of the properties in the year 1956 on leasehold rights and
they were regularly paying tax, enjoying the properties by residing therein
and effecting improvements and cultivating rubber, pepper, coffee, etc.
It is submitted that thereafter the respondents herein obtained the said
properties assigned in their favour by certificates of purchase issued by
the Land Tribunal under the Kerala Land Reforms Act in recognition of
their status as cultivating tenants of the said properties as defined under
the said Act. It is submitted that thus the respective lands in question
stood assigned to them by virtue of Ex. P1 and P2 produced before the
High Court. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge also observed
in the judgment that though the said certificates of purchase were
cancelled subsequently, the appellate authority set aside the said order
of cancellation and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal.
4.3 It is submitted that Section 8 of the 1971 Act deals with
"Settlement of Disputes". As per section 3(1) of the said Act, "private
forest" shall stand vest in Government. The term "private forest" is
defined under section 2(f) of the 1971 Act and it excludes, inter alia, the
lands which are used principally for the cultivation of tea, coffee, cocoa,
rubber etc. and lands used for any purpose ancillary to the cultivation of
such crops or for the preparation of the same for the market. It is
submitted that as per section 8 if there is any dispute as to whether the
land is a "private forest" or any "private forest" or any portion thereof
has vested in the Government or not, the concerned person may apply to
the Forest Tribunal. It is submitted that in the two OAs filed by the
respondents, the Divisional Forest Officer (Custodian of vested forests)
filed two separate counter affidavits in which he specifically admitted
the possession of the respondents. It is therefore submitted that the High
Court has rightly relied upon the aforesaid two counter affidavits filed
by the Divisional Forest Officer and has rightly directed the revenue
authorities - Village Officer to accept the basic tax payable under the
1961 Act from the respondents.
4.4 It is submitted that once the appellants herein admitted in their
counter affidavits filed before the Forest Tribunal that there are
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
985
certificates of purchase in favour of the respondents and that they are in
possession of 12 acres each and that the department does not have a
claim over the said properties, there is no "dispute for settlement" so as
to be raised or settled under section 8 of the 1971 Act and therefore the
dismissal of the two OAs by the Forest Tribunal on the ground of limitation
is inconsequential.
4.5 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the
present appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at
length.
5.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the respondents
herein filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge for a writ of
mandamus directing the revenue authorities and more particularly the
Village Officer to accept the basic tax leviable under section 5 of the
1961 Act with respect to the lands in question. The said writ petition was
filed on the premise that they are the owner and in possession of the
disputed land and jenmam rights and purchase certificates were issued
in their favour and that their possession and ownership have been admitted
by the Divisional Forest Officer in the two counter affidavits filed before
the Tribunal in OA Nos. 13 & 14 of 1986. The High Court has accepted
the same and issued a writ of mandamus directing the revenue authorities
- Village Officer to accept the basic tax from the respondents herein.
That the said judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge
has been affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court, by the
impugned judgment and order.
5.2 However, the High Court has not at all appreciated and/or
considered the fact that as such the jenmam rights and purchase
certificates which were earlier issued in the years 1975 & 1979 in favour
of the respondents have been cancelled by the appropriate authority.
The High Court has also not appreciated the fact that as such a notification
has been issued under Rule 2A of the Kerala Private Forest (Tribunal)
Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the '1972 Rules') and the lands
in question have been declared as a "private forest land", vide notification
issued in the year 1977. It is to be noted that the private respondent nos.
1 & 2 herein filed an application under Section 8 of the 1971 Act
challenging the said notification and vesting of the lands in question as a
private forest land and declaring the same as a forest land, however, the
VILLAGE OFFICER AND OTHERS v. CHUNAYAMAKKAL JOSEPH
AND ANOTHER [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
said application came to be dismissed by the Forest Tribunal, vide order
dated 12.3.1990 and thereafter there is no challenge to the aforesaid
notification including the land in question as a vested forest land.
6. The High Court has also not appreciated that in order dated
16.4.2002 passed by the Land Tribunal cancelling the order of assignment
of jenmam rights and certificates of purchase, the Land Tribunal
specifically observed that OA applicants failed to establish tenancy rights
claimed by them and the survey plan clearly shows that the lands in
question are covered by the vested forest land of the government. Thus,
as per the Land Tribunal, respondent nos. 1 & 2 herein cannot claim any
right over the disputed lands in question. Once the notification issued
under Section 2A of the 1972 Rules declaring the lands in question as
vested forest land stands and as on today there is no jenmam rights and/
or purchase certificates in favour of the respondents herein with respect
to the lands in question, respondent nos. 1 & 2 herein cannot be said to
be the owner and/or cannot be said to be having a valid title in their
favour and therefore there is no question of any acceptance of basic tax
from them, leviable under the 1961 Act. It appears that by asking such a
relief of writ of mandamus directing the Village Officer/revenue
authorities to accept the basic tax from them, the original writ petitioners
- respondents herein want to create title/ownership in their favour. Any
dispute with respect to the forest land can only be settled under Section
8 of the 1971 Act. Therefore, the High Court has not properly appreciated
the mala fide intention on the part of the respondents to pray for such a
writ of mandamus and indirectly establishing their right, title and
ownership over the disputed lands in question which, as such, is declared
as a vested forest land as far back as in the years 1975/1977, pursuant
to the notification issued under Rule 2A of the 1972 Rules.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
impugned judgments and orders passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court as well as by the learned Single Judge are not sustainable
and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court dated 23.11.2017 passed in Writ
Appeal No. 29/2011 and the judgment and order dated 08.07.2010 passed
in Writ Petition No. 11252/2008, as also the order dated 22.10.2010
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
987
passed in Review Petition No. 877/2010 are hereby quashed and set
aside. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)
VILLAGE OFFICER AND OTHERS v. CHUNAYAMAKKAL JOSEPH
AND ANOTHER [M. R. SHAH, J.]