IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 MFA.No. 59 of 2001(B) --------------------- OA.2/1999 of FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANTS: ----------- 1.STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 2.CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN, FOREST COMPLEX, RAILWAY COLONY ROAD, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.PRAKASH RESPONDENTS: ------------- ITTAPPAN @ KUTTAPPAN, S/O.PAZHANIMALA, PULIKANPOTTA, MALESAMANGALAM, THIRUVILLAMALA, THALAPPALLI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SRI.D.NARENDRANATH SRI.JOJI VARGHESE SRI.M.HARISHARMA THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. ------------------------------- M.F.A.NO.59 OF 2001 (B) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. Forest tribunal in the impugned order found that five acres in Survey No.61 of Thiruvillamala village owned by respondent was not a private forest on the appointed day under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The tribunal found that respondent claimant had possession and title over the property. Tribunal also found that in Ext.A1 Assignment deed No.586/56, land was described as a parambu. Tribunal further noticed that from the Taluk Land Board's order, it is clear that this land was included as a dry land and that was accepted by the State land Board. In the land ceiling case, if the land is a private forest, this land would not have been included, as private forests were exempted for the purpose of land ceiling purpose. Once the land is treated as an agricultural land for the purpose of ceiling area by the MFA.59/01 2 State, it cannot be stated that it was a private forest vested with the Government especially when there was no pleading that the Land Board order was obtained by fraud or coercion. That is a binding document. The Commission report also shows that apart from very few trees, land is a plain one where only seasonal crops are cultivated. Tribunal also found that it is not a forest full of trees. There is no case that it was a waste land or enclave circled by wooden area. Tribunal after detailed consideration of Ext.C1 Commission report, documentary and other evidence produced, found that land in question was not a private forest on the appointed day. On going through the impugned order, we are of the opinion that it was the finding of the tribunal based on evidence and there is no illegality. Therefore, no interference is required in the appeal proceedings, and hence, this appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE K.HEMA, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO.59 OF 2001 (B) --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 25th February, 2008