IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 MFA.No. 279 of 2001(B) --------------------------------- OA.4/1999 of FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANTS: -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVA. 2. CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN, FOREST COMPLEX, OLAVAKKODE. BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.PRAKASH RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. LAKSHMI , S/O. KITTA. 2. HARIDASAN, SON OF KITTA, MARUTHANTHADAM, CHEMBUKADU P.O., KUTHANOOR, ALATHUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SRI.D.NARENDRANATH SRI.M.HARISHARMA THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. Koshy & K.Hema, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A. No. 279 of 2001 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. Respondents in this case approached the Forest Tribunal for a declaration that one acre of land in Survey No.425/3 and 35 cents of land in Survey No.2428/2 of Kuthannor amsom, Alalthur Taluk are not private forests liable to be vested in the Government and if, in any case, it is found that it is a private forest, it is entitled to get exemption under sections 3 (2) and 3 (3) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). Admittedly, the property is situated in Malabar area. Section 2 (f) of the Act defines 'private forest'. The tribunal, on the basis of evidence, found that the area in question is not covered under the M.P.P.F. Act. There is no ground in the appeal questioning that part of the finding. If it is not a private forest, it will not vest in the Government under section 3 (1) of the Act even if the land is demarcated as a private forest and notification is published. If the land is a private forest, it will automatically vest in Government even if it is not demarcated. The tribunal, on evidence, found that M.F.A.No.279 /2001 2 the scheduled land is not a forest or a waste land or an enclave within wooded area covered under the Act. The tribunal found that the area in question is not a private forest as defined in the Act and is not vested in the Government. 2. The tribunal also noticed that the title deeds from 1963 are produced and the properties are described as 'paramba' and not as a private forest or as 'kadu'. The commissioner also found that only very few trees were there and the age of those trees shows that such trees were planted after the Act came into force. Contention of the respondents is that their possession was interrupted by the forest officials preventing cultivation and commissioner visited the property only in the year 2000. With regard to the identification of the property, contention of the appellant is that commissioner's description of the property in the schedule is different from the property scheduled in the petition. It is noticed by the Commissioner that in east, west and south there are parambas and in north there is a panchayat mud road as far as item No.2 is concerned. With regard to item No.1 also, it is stated that there is a house of Kunjukutty Rowther in the east. It is true that it is not mentioned in the description of the property in the schedule of panchayat road in the boundary and name of person whose M.F.A.No.279 /2001 3 house is not mentioned. There is a panchayat road in the south, but, it is mentioned that the boundary is a paramba and the mud road may not be in existence in the original document executed in 1963 and the description of the property as mentioned in the title deeds were mentioned in the schedule. Only at the time of commission was taken in 2000 that the mud road constructed by the panchayat was noticed. Other sides are also parambas. So, all the sides are either parambas and at paragraph 2 of the commission report it is specifically stated that the property scheduled in the petition was identified in the presence and help of respondents, forest officials, village officials and one forest guard was present at the time of inspection. Therefore, the property was already identified. The order of the tribunal is based on evidence adduced in the case. We see no ground to interfere in the order. Appeal dismissed. J.B.Koshy Judge K. Hema Judge vaa M.F.A.No.279 /2001 4 J.B. KOSHY AND K.HEMA ,JJ. ------------------------------------- M.F.A. No. 279 of 2001 ------------------------------------- Judgment Dated:26th February, 2008