IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 MFA.No. 154 of 2004() --------------------- OA.24/2001 of FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): APPLICANT: ------------------------ LAKSHMI, W/O. THAYAN, D/O. PAZHANI, KIZHAKKETHATTAN PARAMBA, PALLAVUR AMSOM, DESOM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C SMT.G.AMBILI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FOREST) SRI M.P. PRAKASH THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.F.A. (FOREST) 154 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: AUGUST 4, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The primary prayer in the application filed by the appellant before the Forest Tribunal under Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, was for a declaration that the petition schedule property was not a private forest. In the alternative, she further prayed for exemption under Section 3(2) and 3(3) of the Act. 2. The Tribunal dismissed the application since the appellant failed to produce the entire text of the partition deed which was marked as Ext.A1 in the case. The Tribunal noticed that Ext.A1 produced by the appellant did contain only “E Schedule” comprising only the property which was set apart for her in the partition. In other words, Ext.A1 did not contain the other schedules. Therefore the Tribunal took the view that there was no material to show that the appellant would be entitled to get the benefit of Section 3(2) of the Act. 3. Sri Prakash, learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) submits that even if the appellant produced the above document before the Tribunal in its entirety, it may not have improved her case M.F.A. (FOREST) 154 OF 2004 2 in any manner. 4. Appellant has produced the entire text of Ext.A1 document before this Court. We have perused the same. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the observations made by the Tribunal in paragraph 8 of the order, we are of the view that the appellant has to be given a further opportunity to produce the said document before the Tribunal and adduce further evidence, if any, in support of her case. However, such a concession can be granted to the appellant only if she pays a sum of Rs.7500/- as cost to the respondents. The cost shall be deposited before the Tribunal within one month from today. 5. The Tribunal shall confine the consideration of the case only to the availability of the benefit of Section 3(2) of the Act. It is made clear that it will be open to the appellant and the respondents to adduce further evidence, if so advised. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on September 9, 2010. The Registry shall return the certified copy of the document to the appellant on her substituting the same with a photocopy. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-