Geethakumari C v. The Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala and others

**OP(FT) NOS. 6 & 10 OF 2019 -1-** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM C.R.** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 4TH ASWINA, 1944** ## **OP(FT) NO. 6 OF 2019** ## **PETITIONER:** GEETHAKUMARI C, AGED 47 YEARS, D/O. LATE SETHUMADHAVAN NAIR, CHERUKULATHU VEEDU, PERINGOTTUKURISSI,ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD 678 574. BY ADVS. RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SRI.MOBIN JACOB ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM 695 001. 2 THE CHIEF SECRETARY, CUSTODIAN OF NATIONALIZED FOREST, TRIVANDRUM- 695 001 3 RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O LATE SETHUMADHAVAN NAIR, AGED 63 YEARS, KOLATHUR HOUSE, CHOOLANNUR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 678 574 4 JAYA, D/O LATE SETHUMADHAVAN NAIR, AGED 47 YEARS, KOLATHUR HOUSE, CHOOLANNUR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 574 5 AMBIKA, D/O LATE SETHUMADHAVAN NAIR, AGED 46 YEARS, KOLATHUR HOUSE, CHOOLANNUR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 678 574 6 GOURI, D/O LATE SETHUMADHAVAN NAIR, AGED 40 YEARS, KOLATHUR HOUSE, CHOOLANNUR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD **OP(FT) NOS. 6 & 10 OF 2019 -2-** DISTRICT- 678 574 7 GIRIJA, D/O LAE SETHUMADHAVAN NAIR, AGED 40 YEARS, KOLATHUR HOUSE, CHOOLANNUR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 678 574 8 V.M.JOHN SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED BY ADV DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN Nagaraj Narayanan- Spl.GP THIS OP (FOREST TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2022, ALONG WITH OP(FT).10/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OP(FT) NOS. 6 & 10 OF 2019 -3-** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **& THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 4TH ASWINA, 1944** **OP(FT) NO. 10 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTOA 59/2000 OF FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 GEETHAKUMARI C AGED 48 YEARS D/O. LATE SETHUMADHAVAN NAIR, CHERUKULATHU VEEDU, PERINGOTTUKURISSI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 574 2 RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 63 YEARS S/O. SETHUMADHAVAN NAIR, KOLATHUR HOUSE, CHOOLANNUR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 574 3 JAYA AGED 48 YEARS D/O. SETHUMADHAVAN NAIR, KOLATHUR HOUSE, CHOOLANNUR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 574 4 AMBIKA, AGED 47 YEARS D/O. SETHUMADHAVAN NAIR, KOLATHUR HOUSE, CHOOLANNUR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 574 5 GOURI AGED 41 YEARS D/O. SETHUMADHAVAN NAIR, KOLATHUR HOUSE, CHOOLANNUR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 574 **OP(FT) NOS. 6 & 10 OF 2019 -4-** 6 GIRIJA, AGED 41 YEARS D/O. SETHUMADHAVAN NAIR, KOLATHUR HOUSE, CHOOLANUR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 574 BY ADVS. RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.) ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 ANNAMMA MATHUNNI W/O. LATE MATHUNNI, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT VADAKKETHARA VEEDU, CHOOLANNUR AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 574 -(DIED) RESPONDENTS 2 TO 12 RECORDED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF R1 AS PER ORDER DATED 05/11/2019 2 V.M. MARIYAMMA, D/O. LATE MATHUNNI, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT VADAKKETHARA VEEDU, CHOOLANNUR AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 574 3 MARIYAMMA CHERIYAN, D/O. LATE MATHUNNI, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT VADAKKETHARA VEEDU, CHOOLANNUR AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 574 4 V.M. VARGHESE, S/O. LATE MATHUNNI, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT VADAKKETHARA VEEDU, CHOOLANNUR AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 574 5 V.M. ALIYAMMA, (DIED) D/O. LATE MATHUNNI, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT VADAKKETHARA VEEDU, CHOOLANNUR AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, ## **OP(FT) NOS. 6 & 10 OF 2019 -5-** PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 574 6 V.M. SOSAMMA, D/O. LATE MATHUNNI, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT VADAKKETHARA VEEDU, CHOOLANNUR ASMOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 574 7 V.M. MATHAI, D/O. LATE MATHUNNI, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT VADAKKETHARA VEEDU, CHOOLANNUR AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 574 8 V.M. ANNAMMA, D/O. MATHUNNI, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT VADAKKETHARA VEEDU, CHOOLANNUR AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 574 9 V.M. SARAMMA, D/O. MATHUNNI, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT VADAKKETHARA VEEDU, CHOOLANNUR AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 574 10 V.M. ABRAHAM, S/O. MATHUNNI, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT VADAKKETHARA VEEDU, CHOOLANNUR AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 574 11 V.M. CHINNAMMA, D/O. MATHUNNI, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT VADAKKETHARA VEEDU, CHOOLANNUR AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 574 12 V.M. JOHN, S/O. MATHUNNI, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT VADAKKETHARA VEEDU, CHOOLANNUR AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 574 13 THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001 ## **OP(FT) NOS. 6 & 10 OF 2019 -6-** 14 THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FOREST, OLAVAKKODE PALAKKAD, PIN-678 002. 15 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014 16 K.V THOMAS S/O P.K VARGHESE, KARIPPUMURIYIL HOUSE, MOOLANKAVU P.O, WAYANAD, PIN-673502. (ADDL. R16 AND R17 ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED R5 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 19/8/2022 IN I.A.NO. 1 OF 2022 IN OP(FT) NO.10/2019.) 17 NANCY THOMAS, D/O. THOMAS & LATE V.M.ALIYAMMA, KARIPPUMURIYIL HOUSE, MOOLANKAVU.P.O., WAYANAD, PIN-673502. (ADDL. R16 AND R17 ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED R5 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 19/8/2022 IN I.A.NO. 1 OF 2022 IN OP(FT) NO.10/2019.) BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SPL. G.P. (FOREST) NAYANA VARGHESE THIS OP (FOREST TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2022, ALONG WITH OP(FT).6/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OP(FT) NOS. 6 & 10 OF 2019 -7-** **C.R. K. VINOD CHANDRAN & C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------O.P.(FT) Nos.6 & 10 of 2019 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th ] day of September, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** ## K.Vinod Chandran, J. Both the Original Petitions arise from a proceeding initiated before the Forest Tribunal, by one Sethumadhavan Nair; now expired. The present dispute is between the legal heirs of Sethumadhavan Nair and the legal heirs of his assignee. O.P (F.T) No. 6 of 2019 is against rejection of an application for amendment, filed by the legal heirs of Sethumadhavan Nair, for altering the extent of the property which was the subject matter of O.A.No.63 of 1975, later renumbered as O.A.No.59/2000. The learned Tribunal found that the order declaring the subject lands to be exempted under Section 3 (2) (3) of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (for brevity, the Act of 1971) was affirmed in an appeal before this Court and the principle of merger, restrains the Tribunal from entertaining a review of its judgment in the O.A. The Tribunal, according to us, rightly found that when the order of the Tribunal has merged with the order in the MFA, there can be no review sought for before the Tribunal. Reliance was also placed on the Full Bench **OP(FT) NOS. 6 & 10 OF 2019 -8-** decision of this Court in _Thomas v. Kunjamma 2005 (4) KLT 286_ . O.P. (FT)No.6/2019, hence, has to be rejected, leaving open the remedy if any, before the Division Bench of the High Court, which disposed of MFA No.166/2004. 2. O.P.(FT) No.10/2019 is filed against Ext.P14 order of the Tribunal which rejected the application filed by the legal heirs of Sethumadhavan Nair to review Ext.P8 order. 3. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Sethumadhavan for the petitioners, Sri. Dinesh Mathew Murikkan for the party respondents and Sri. Nagaraj Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) appearing for the State. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, the proceedings before the Tribunal had a checkered history which has to be noticed at the outset. On the Act of 1971 coming into force, the department took a stand that the properties belonging to Sethumadhavan Nair was a private forest which stood statutorily vested in the State. Sethumadhavan Nair filed O.A.No.63/1975 before the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad which was allowed by order dated 11.08.1977. On 21.07.1980, by Deed No.2685/1980 of SRO Alathur, produced as Ext.R2(b), Sethumadhavan Nair assigned the property **OP(FT) NOS. 6 & 10 OF 2019 -9-** to Sara Philip. Sara Philip sold the property to one Mathunny as per Ext.R2(c), in the year 1981. In the year 1987, by I.A.No.236/1987, the department again approached the Tribunal seeking review of the order dated 11.08.1977. The same was allowed and by order dated 06.12.1988, the O.A. stood dismissed. Against the dismissal, the legal heirs of Sethumadhavan Nair and Mathunny jointly filed an appeal before the High Court. Noticing that the legal heirs/assignees of Sethumadhavan Nair were not impleaded in the review sought for in the above I.A., M.F.A.No.601/1989 so filed was also allowed on merits and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the matter was renumbered as O.A.No.59/2000, which stood allowed by order dated 27.12.2002. This was confirmed by Ext.P2 in M.F.A.No.166/2004. Hence, as of now, the declaration under Section 3(2) & (3) of the Act of 1971 has become final. 5. At this juncture, the legal heirs of Mathunny approached the Tribunal with an application for restoration of the properties. The Divisional Forest Officer filed Ext.P7 objection to that application. The Tribunal rejected the objection and directed the Custodian to restore the property to the applicants therein, by Ext.P8 order. Ext.P8 order was sought to be reviewed in an I.A, on the ground that the legal heirs of Sethumadhavan Nair were not impleaded ## **OP(FT) NOS. 6 & 10 OF 2019 -10-** in the proceedings before the Tribunal. The learned Senior Counsel took us through the provisions of the Act of 1971, specifically Section 8, which speaks of settlement of disputes. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the nature of the dispute is very clearly delineated in the clauses under Section 8(1) and restoration as is seen from Section 8(3)(b) is a power conferred on the Custodian. The Tribunal is rendered _functus officio_ in so far as the declaration having been made and then the issue of restoring the property has to be considered by the Custodian. In considering the said issue, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that, restoration can only be _“to the person in possession thereof immediately before the appointed day” (sic)._ The argument raised by the learned Senior Counsel is that the restoration can only be made to the legal heirs of Sethumadhavan Nair and not to the assignees. It is also pointed out that the Custodian had specifically raised a dispute with respect to the assignment deed as seen from Ext.P7. Sri. Dinesh Mathew Muricken, the learned Counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the assignees, would point out that the assignee steps into the shoes of the assignor just as a legal heir succeeds to the title in the event of the title remaining with the owner itself. The title having been passed to the assignee by a registered deed, necessarily the legal heirs step into the shoes of the **OP(FT) NOS. 6 & 10 OF 2019 -11-** original assignor and the restoration has to be made to the assignees and not to the legal heirs of the assignor who was in possession of the property at the time of vesting. If a contrary interpretation is taken, then even the legal heirs would not be entitled to get restoration of the property for reason of the original title holder, from whom the possession had been taken, having passed away. The Full Bench decision of this Court in _Parameswara Sastrigal K.S. v. State of Kerala 2008 (2) KHC 434;_ is bang on point. 6. The Full Bench was concerned with the question whether an assignee can get the benefit of exemption under Section 3(2) & (3), if his predecessor in interest had that right on the appointed day. It was held that an assignee of the original owner could claim the benefit of exemption before the Tribunal; in which event, the assignee, after the order of the Tribunal affirming the exemption, could seek restoration. We are in perfect agreement that clause (b) of Section 8(3) has to be given a meaningful interpretation, and as held by the Full Bench of this Court, the assignee too gets a valid claim for restoration from the custodian. However, we agree with the learned Senior Counsel that it is not for the Tribunal to direct the Custodian to restore the property to a specified person. In such circumstances, we find the application filed before the Tribunal to be superfluous in so far as the legal heirs of the assignee **OP(FT) NOS. 6 & 10 OF 2019 -12-** having a remedy before the Custodian itself. The legal heirs of the assignee would be entitled to make an application before the Custodian. But, in that context, we have to observe that the impleadment of the legal heirs of the original assignor is not imperative, especially since the power vested in the Custodian is only to restore the properties to the owner or his assignees or to the legal heirs of the owner; if there is no assignment in the life time of the owner. 7. The Custodian is merely conferred with a power to restore and not necessarily to decide on any _interse_ disputes regarding title. The legal heirs of the assignor could take appropriate remedies before the Civil Court and this is not an issue to be agitated before the Custodian. In the teeth of such finding we also have to deal with Ext.P7 objection raised by the Divisional Forest Officer, whom we also notice, is not the Custodian. The Divisional Forest Officer, objected restoration to the legal heirs of Mathunny, on two grounds. First it was contended that Sethumadhavan Nair did not state in the Original Application about the assignment and the document is hence concocted. It was then alleged that, if the documents are held to be genuine, then the O.A. itself would be rendered null and void, since at the time of institution of O.A.No.59/2000, Sethumadhavan Nair was not in possession of the property. **OP(FT) NOS. 6 & 10 OF 2019 -13-** We are afraid that the Divisional Forest Officer misguided himself in raising the above contentions. The absence of mention of the assignment made by Sethumadhavan Nair is only because the O.A. was filed prior to the assignment; the assignment having been made after the original order dated 11.08.1977 in the O.A. We have noticed the checkered career of the O.A. in the earlier paragraph from which it is clear that the O.A. was assigned the number 59/2000, by way of renumbering in the Forest Tribunal at Kozhikode, since by that time the Forest Tribunal at Palakkad, wherein the original O.A. was filed, seized to function. Hence, it cannot be said that the O.A. itself would be rendered null and void. 8. On the above reasoning, we leave the legal heirs of the assignee to approach the Custodian for restoration of the property, which shall be considered, bearing in mind, the observations made by us herein above. The legal heirs of the original assignor, if intending to raise a dispute on title, could raise it in appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court. We make it clear that the role of the Custodian is only to make the restoration as a consequence of the declaration made by the Tribunal and it does not empower the Custodian to decide on the genuineness of the document, especially when the same is a registered deed produced before the Custodian. **OP(FT) NOS. 6 & 10 OF 2019 -14-** The enquiry could at best be, only into the _factum_ of the applicants being the legal heirs of the assignee. O.P.(FT)No.10/2019 stands disposed of with the above observations and reservations. Ordered accordingly. Parties to suffer their respective costs. **Sd/-** **K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE** uu 26/09/2022 ## **OP(FT) NOS. 6 & 10 OF 2019 -15-** ## **APPENDIX OF OP(FT) 10/2019** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.12.2002 IN| ||O.A. NO. 59/2000 PASSED BY THE FOREST| ||TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE.| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.2.2008 IN| ||MFA NO. 166/2004 PASSED ON 28.2.2008 BY THIS| ||HON'BLE COURT.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.6.2008 IN| ||W.P.(C) NO. 16725/2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE| ||COURT.| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.2.2018 ISSUED| ||TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE DIVISIONAL| ||FOREST OFFICER, NENMARA.| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTERS DATED 7.7.2018 AND| ||8.8.2018.| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN I.A. NO. 205/2014 IN| ||O.A. NO. 59/2000 FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 12| ||HEREIN AS PETITIONERS AGAINST RESPONDENTS 1| ||TO 12 HEREIN AS PETITIONERS AGAINST| ||RESPONDENTS 13 AND 14 BEFORE THE FOREST| ||TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE.| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE| ||DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NEMMARA ON BEHALF| ||OF RESPONDENTS 13 AND 14 HEREIN DATED| ||10.2.2015 IN I.A NO. 205/2014 IN O.A. NO.| ||59/2000 BEFORE THE FOREST TRIBUNAL,| ||KOZHIKODE.| |EXHIBIT P8|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.1.2016 IN I.A| ||NO. 205/2014 IN O.A. NO. 59/2000 PASSED BY| ## **OP(FT) NOS. 6 & 10 OF 2019 -16-** THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE. |EXHIBIT P9|TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED AS I.A. NO.| |---|---| ||25/2019 IN I.A NO. 205/2014 AND I.A. NO.| ||26/2019 IN O.A. NO. 59/2000 FILED BY| ||PETITIONERS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE| ||FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE.| |EXHIBIT P10|TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY| ||THE 12TH RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS| ||1 TO 11 TO EXHIBIT P9 BEFORE THE FOREST| ||TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE.| |EXHIBIT P11|TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY| ||RESPONDENTS 13 AND 14 TO EXHIBIT P9.| |EXHIBIT P12|TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT LIST PRODUCED BY| ||PETITIONERS BEFORE FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE| ||AS PER I.A NO. 26/2019 IN I.A NO. 205/2014 IN| ||O.A. NO. 59/2000(ALONG WITH DOCUMENTS)| |EXHIBIT P13|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTES OF ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED| ||BY COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER IN I.A NO. 26/2019| ||IN I.A. NO. 205/2014 IN OA. NO. 59/2000 DATED| ||24.7.2019 BEFORE THE FOREST TRIBUNAL,| ||KOZHIKODE.| |EXHIBIT P14|CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 19.8.2019 IN| ||I.A NO. 25/2019 AND I.A NO. 26/2019 IN I.A| ||NO. 205/2014 IN O.A. NO. 59/2000 PASSED BY| ||THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE.| |RESPONDENT EXHIBITS|| |EXHIBIT R2(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.NO.63/1975| ||PASSED BY THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD DATED| ||11.08.1977.| |EXHIBIT R2(B)|TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2685/1980 OF| ## **OP(FT) NOS. 6 & 10 OF 2019 -17-** ||S.R.O ALATHUR DATED 21.07.1980| |---|---| |EXHIBIT R2(C)|TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3876/1981| ||EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF MATHUNNY OF S.R.O| ||ALATHOOR DATED 04.12.1981.| |EXHIBIT R2(D)|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.NO.236/1987 IN| ||O.A.NO.63/1975 PASSED BY THE FOREST| ||TRIBUNAL,PALAKKAD DATED 06.12.1988.| |EXHIBIT R2(E)|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN M.F.A| ||NO.601/1989 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT| ||DATED 02.08.2000.| |EXHIBIT R2(F)|TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF MOTHER OF THE| ||PETITIONERS DATED 12.05.2001.| |EXHIBIT R2(G)|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.NO.59/2000| ||PASSED BY THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE| ||DATED 27.12.2002.| |EXHIBIT R2(H)|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN| ||M.F.A.NO.166/2004 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE| ||COURT DATED 28.02.2008.| |EXHIBIT R2(I)|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.205/2014 IN| ||O.A.NO.59/2000 PASSED BY THE FOREST TRIBUNAL| ||KOZHIKODE DATED 28.01.2016.| ## **OP(FT) NOS. 6 & 10 OF 2019 -18-** ## **APPENDIX OF OP(FT) 6/2019** PETITIONER EXHIBITS |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.12.2002 IN| |---|---| ||O.A. NO. 59/2000 PASSED BY THE FOREST| ||TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE.| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.2.2008 IN| ||M.F.A. NO. 166/2004 AND C.M. APPLICATION NO.| ||2172/2004 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 304/2018 IN O.A. NO.| ||59/2000 DATED 3.8.2018 FILED BEFORE THE| ||FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE CAMP AT PALAKKAD.| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2018| ||PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN O.P. FT NO.| ||6/2018.| |EXHIBIT P5|CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.1.2019 IN| ||I.A. NO. 304/2018 IN O.A. NO. 59/2000 PASSED| ||BY THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE.| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF SCHEDULE OF| ||KANAM ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 30-9-1970| ||EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE FATHER OF THE| ||PETITIONER VIZ SETHUMADHAVAN NAIR|