AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent is present. However, there is no appearance on behalf of the applicant. Applicant is also not present. Mrs.Suvitha, learned counsel appearing for the Kerala Government is also present.
In our order dated 24.07.2017, it was made very clear that the applicant who was not even present on that date of hearing, if fails to appear today, the matter will be dismissed. Even today, neither the original applicant nor the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is present in the Tribunal.
The learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent who has filed M.A.No.104 of 2017 for dismissal of Application No.104 of 2017 would submit that the original application is liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts. In fact in respect of the same issue there was a Writ Petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.C.No.34185 of 2015 in which in I.A.No.2125 of 2017 filed by the 7th respondent, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the order dated 11.4.2017 has given certain directions allowing the petitioner to cut and remove rubber trees and to use the land concerned for agricultural operations.
The learned counsel also would submit that as against the interim order the Writ Appeal came to be filed in W.A. No.878 of 2017 and the Hon'ble First Bench of High Court in the order dated 25th May, 2017 while confirming the learned Single Judge's order, has dismissed the Writ Appeal. It is also stated that as against the dismissal, a third party Review Petition came to be filed and that was also dismissed on 27.06.2017 by which the Division Bench has refused leave to file review. Therefore, the learned counsel would insist that the application is liable to be dismissed for the suppression of material facts wherein the 7th respondent is carrying on the agricultural activity by raising rubber plantation.
However, in view of the absence of the applicant in Original Application, the application stands dismissed for non prosecution.
Needless to state that as per the order of the learned single judge of the Hon'ble High Court, as confirmed by the Division Bench, it is always open to the 7th respondent to continue agricultural operations.
In view of the order passed in Application No.104 of 2017, M.A.No.104 of 2017 also stands disposed in the above terms.