L. Radhakrishnan vs Parakulangara Devaswom .

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2934 OF 2011

L. RADHAKRISHNAN Appellant(s)

VERSUS

PARAKULANGARA DEVASWOM & ANR. Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2964 OF 2011

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Civil Appeal No. 2964 of 2011 is filed against

the Judgment dated 23.06.2006 passed in Writ Appeal

No. 457 of 2000 and Civil Appeal No. 2934 of 2011 is

filed against the order dated 17.10.2007 passed in

Contempt Case (C) No. 1195 of 2007. The issue

pertains to the claim made by the respondents that

they are entitled to restoration of their land, which

was declined by the State as an ecologically fragile

land.

2. The short Judgment in the writ appeal did not go Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by into any disputed contentions but merely made an JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.11.07 14:28:04 IST Reason: observation that the Judgment impugned before the

Division Bench for restoration of the land would be 2

given effect to, subject to the right of the State

that may be available to it under the provisions of

The Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of

Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (in short, “the

Act”). Whereas in the order dated 17.10.2007, the

Division Bench entered a categorical finding that in

having declined to restore the land, the appellants

have committed contempt of court and hence, decided

to frame charge accordingly. It was at that stage

Civil Appeal No. 2934 of 2011 was filed.

3. We have heard Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned

senior counsel appearing for the appellants, and

Dr.Mathew Kuzhalnadan, learned counsel appearing for

the respondents.

4. In the nature of the order we propose to pass, we

do not think it necessary to go into the background

of the entire litigation. Section 10 of the Act

provides for a machinery for settlement of the

disputes. The provision reads as follows :-

“10. Settlement of disputes by the Tribunal.- (1) Where any dispute arises as to whether,-

(a)any land is an ecologically fragile land or not; or

(b)any ecologically fragile land or 3

portion thereof has vested in the Government or not; or

(c)the compensation determined under section 8 is insufficient or not, the person who claims that the land is not an ecologically fragile and or that the ecologically fragile land has not vested in the Government, or that the compensation is not sufficient, may, within five years from the date of commencement of this Act or within six months from the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 4 declaring the land to be an ecologically fragile land or the date of communication of compensation under section 8, as the case may be, or within such time as the Government may notify in this behalf, apply to the Tribunal for settlement of the dispute.

(2) An application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed.

(3) If the Tribunal decides that any land is not an ecologically fragile land or that an ecologically fragile land or portion thereof has not vested in the Government and,-

(a)no appeal under section 11 has been preferred against the decision of the Tribunal within the period specified therein; or

(b)such appeal having been preferred under section 11 has been dismissed by the High Court;

the custodian shall, as soon as may be, after the expiry of the period referred to in clause (a) or, as the case may be, after the date of the order of the High Court dismissing the appeal, restore possession of such land or portion as the case may be, to the owner of such land.

(4) If the Tribunal decides that the compensation determined under section 8 is not adequate and revises the amount of compensation and,-

4

(a)no appeal under section 11 has been preferred against the decision of the Tribunal within the period specified therein; or

(b)such appeal having been preferred under section 11 has been dismissed by the High Court;

the custodian shall, as soon as may be, after the expiry of the period referred to in clause (a) or, as the case may be, after the date of the order of the High Court dismissing the appeal, pay such compensation to the owner of such land.”

5. Going by the Judgment of the Division Bench in

the writ appeal, the Court was conscious of the

right, if any, available to the State to proceed

against the disputed land under the Act. Having thus

taken steps under the Act, it cannot be said that the

appellants have, in any way, committed any contempt.

Be that as it may, since the crucial question to be

decided is whether the disputed land is an

ecologically fragile land, the jurisdiction is wholly

vested in the Tribunal constituted under Section 9 of

the Act. Therefore, while setting aside the impugned

order dated 17.10.2007 in the contempt case, we

dispose of these appeals with liberty to the

respondents to take recourse to the statutory remedy

under Section 10 of the Act before the Tribunal. In

the event of such an approach being made within sixty

days from today, we request the Tribunal to dispose

of the same expeditiously and preferably within one 5

year. We make it clear that we have not considered

the contentions of both parties on merits and,

therefore, it will be open to the parties to raise

all available contentions before the Tribunal,

including the contentions raised by the learned

counsel for the respondents pertaining to the report

of the Commissioner in the year 1999 and the order of

the Tribunal dated 05.07.1980.

No costs.

.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]

.......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI ]

New Delhi;

November 01, 2017.

6

ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.5 SECTION XI -A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 2934/2011

L. RADHAKRISHNAN Appellant(s)

VERSUS

PARAKULANGARA DEVASWOM & ANR. Respondent(s)

WITH

C.A. No. 2964/2011 (XI -A)

Date : 01-11-2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

Counsel for the parties Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv.

Mr. G. Prakash, Adv.

Mr. Jishnu M. L., Adv.

Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Adv.

Ms. Beena Prakash, Adv.

Mr. Vijay Shankar V. L., Adv.

Dr. Mathew Kuzhalnadan, Adv.

Mr. Abir Phukan, Adv.

Mr. Pushkar Prehar, Adv.

Mr. T. V. George, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed

non-reportable Judgment.

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)