IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 MFA.No. 1366 of 2001() -------------------------------- OA.102/1998 of FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT: ------------------- CHINNAPENNU @ AMINA UMMA, W/O.CHINNA ROWTHER AND D/O. ARANAKOTTIL NOOR MOHAMMED ROWTHER, KUNISSERY, KODUVAYOOR AMSOM, CHITTUR TALUK, REP.BY POWER-OF-ATTORNEY HOLDER, VASUDEVAN, S/O. CHAMU, SREEKRISHNA RUBBER ESTATE, ARANAKOTTIL, KUNISSERY, ALATHUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FOREST, ARANYABHAVAN, FOREST COMPLEX, RAILWAY COLONY ROAD, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. 3. MUMTAZ, W/O. SHAIKH MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT ARUNAKKAD, KUNISSERY, ALATHUR TALUK. 4. SWATHI, D/O. DO. IN DO. 5. JAFFER, S/O. DO. IN DO. 6. KAJA HUSSAIN, S/O. DO. DO. M.F.A. NO.1366/2001 7. THAVAVUDDIN, S/O. DO. IN DO. DO. 8. TIKKAKHAN, S/O. DO. IN DO. DO. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.PRAKASH - R1 & R2 SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. - R3 TO R8 SRI.LIJU. M.P THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.1366 OF 2001 ------------------------------------- Dated 11th February, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Appellant in this case filed an application before the Forest Tribunal in respect of 5.35 acres of land for declaration that it is not a private forest and vested in the Government and even if it is private forest, it is exempted under section 3(2) and 3(3) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act. Out of the area, 4.35 acres were planted with rubber and one acre with cashew. The fact that it was a planted area was not in dispute. But, the Tribunal found that appellant's predecessor in interest filed an application in respect of the same area and it was rejected and, therefore, on the basis of the principles akin resjudicata, application is not maintainable. We agree with the above view. Learned counsel submitted that after Tribunal's decision Government itself verified the occupation in the area. The land in dispute is admittedly a cultivated area. In 2005 notices were issued by the Government to the persons in actual possession. We make it clear that even though we are dismissing this appeal, if the appellant/claimant has got any other remedies, she can avail the same and any benefit she is MFA.1366/2001 2 entitled on the basis of subsequent proceedings will not be affected by this judgment or the orders of the Forest Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with the above observation. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks