IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 446 of 2009() ------------------------------- AA.41/1996 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR),THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------- N.K. SIVARAMAN, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, NOKKARA HOUSE, VELLAPARAKUNNU, KAVASSERY P.O., PALAKKAD -43, BY ADV. SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS -------------------------- 1. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NENMARA DIVISION, NENMARA P.O.. CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DIST. 2. RECEIVER, KAVALAPPARA ESTATE, OTTAPPALAM P.O., PALAKKAD DIST. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R3 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.M.P.PRAKASH (FOREST) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 462 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON 07/04/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------------- CRP Nos.446,462, 463, 464, 465,467 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated 7th April 2010 Order Six appeals namely AA Nos.36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 of 1996 filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Nenmara Division, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad, were allowed by the appellate authority (Land Reforms) and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. The said order is assailed in these Revision Petitions. Since common questions are thrown up for consideration in these revisions, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. The facts and exhibits in CRP No.446/09 are being referred to hereinafter. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the first respondent in AA No.41/96. The petitioner claimed to have purchased 2.33 acres of land in Survey No.428/J/5 in Kavassery No.1 Village in Alathur Taluk from one C.P.Narayanan Nair, who is the predecessor in interest of CRP NO.446/09 & connected cases 2 the property. It is pointed out that the janmam right belongs to Kavalappara Estate and the petitioner purchased the kanam right from Narayanan Nair. 3. It is pointed out that there were 20.27 acres of land comprised in Survey No.428/J-5. It was the subject matter of ceiling proceedings No.170/73 before the Taluk Land Board, Alathur. The predecessor in interest of the revision petitioner contended that the entire 20.27 acres of land is private forest and is liable to be excluded from the ceiling limit. The Government opposed the claim of the declarant and it was found that Narayanan Nair was liable to surrender 8.74 acres of land as excess land and he could retain only 11.53 acres in ceiling area. No appeal was filed by the State against the said order and so, the said order has become final. From the properties which were held by Narayanan Nair, the petitioner purchased a portion of the same. In fact, the petitioner in the other revision petitions are closely related to the petitioner in CRP No.446/09. CRP NO.446/09 & connected cases 3 4. The revision petitioner would point out that later, SM proceedings were initiated by the Land Board and purchase certificates was issued to the revision petitioner and others. The revision petitioner in CRP No.446/09 started a metal crusher unit in his property and invested considerable amount in that venture. When electricity connection was applied for, the Forest Range Officer took out an objection. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing OP No.1654/94. The said OP was disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the Tribunal constituted under the Private Forest Vesting and Assignment Act. The petitioner thereafter filed OA No.114/94 to have declared that the extent of property earned by him did not vest in the State. That was allowed. The Custodian of Forests filed an appeal before the Forest Tribunal. Thereafter, the first respondent filed an appeal against the order of the Coyalmannam Land Tribunal in SM proceedings No.161/89 and other proceedings, raising a contention that the Forest Department was not made a CRP NO.446/09 & connected cases 4 party to the SM proceedings and the orders are not binding on them and are invalid. The revision petitioner and other filed objections in the said appeal. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeals and ordered the Tribunal to set aside the patta issued in SM proceedings and to issue notice to all interested parties. The matter was remanded to the Forest Tribunal for fresh consideration. In the meanwhile, the property held by the petitioner in CRP 446/09 along with another item of property was notified as ecologically fragile land under the relevant Act. The petitioner challenged the notification under the said Act in OA No.45/08. A commission was taken out in that OA and the Commissioner reported that there is no natural vegetation or forest and reported that the property is planted with rubber. The petitioner assails the order of the Appellate Authority, remanding the case to the Land Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that the remand was quite uncalled for since the Land Board had found that the extent of property held CRP NO.446/09 & connected cases 5 by the petitioners is liable to be reduced from the holding of the declarant and also that the Land Tribunal has given purchase certificates to the revision petitioner and others. 6. In the light of these facts, the question to be considered is whether these properties are liable to be treated as forests. 7. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that the mere fact that the Land Board has held that the properties are not liable to be accounted by the declarant, is not binding on the Forest Tribunal, which has to determine the issue independently. It is admitted fact, according to the learned Government Pleader that the Custodian of Forests was not a party to the SM proceedings in which purchase certificates were given to the revision petitioner and others. It is those orders that are challenged in the various appeals before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, rightly allowed the appeals and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal concerned. The learned Government Pleader, in support of CRP NO.446/09 & connected cases 6 his contentions, relied on the the decision reported in State of Kerala v. Popular Estates (2004(12) SCC 434). 8. It is true that the land held by the petitioner was bought from Narayanan Nair, who was entitled to hold only 11.53 acres of land. In fact, the entire property was purchased by the members of the same family. It appears that these persons were able to get purchase certificates said to have been obtained as per the order in the SM Proceedings by the concerned Land Tribunal. It is to be noticed that the Custodian of Forests was not a party to the said proceedings. The Custodian of Forests felt aggrieved by the order since according to him, the property fell within the ambit of Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act and purchase certificates ought not have been granted. It is for that reason, the appeals were filed. 9. It is true that the revision petitioner had produced several documents before the Appellate Authority in respect of their claims. But, the fact remains that the appeals filed by the Divisional Forest Officer were allowed CRP NO.446/09 & connected cases 7 by the Appellate Authority, holding that none of the affected persons were parties to the SM Proceedings, including the owner and the intermediaries. In this context, the decision relied on by the petitioner in State of Kerala v. Popular Estates (supra) may be referred to. In paragraph 11 of the said decision, it has been observed as follows : “Thus, it is not possible to say that the decision of the Taluk Land Board had become final. Secondly, the Taluk Land Board was only concerned with the issue as to whether the lands held by the respondents were liable to be exempted from the ceiling limits. As long as the land fell into one of the exempted categories, the board was not concerned with the exact category under which the land fell since both private forest and plantation are exempted categories. Apart from the determination of the extent of the exempted land, the Board was strictly not requited to go into the question as to whether the land was plantation or private forest. For both these reasons, we are unable to accept that the decision of the Taluk Land Board could operate as res judicata and prejudiced the rights of the State Government before the Forest Tribunal.” 10. In the light of the above decision, it is not open for the revision petitioner to contend that because the Land Board has not taken the extent of land in the CRP NO.446/09 & connected cases 8 possession of the petitioners as holdings held by the declarant, it does not mean that the Land Tribunal is bound by that order. Going by the above decision, the Land Tribunal can independently determine the claim of the petitioner and others. The definite stand of the State is that these properties are private forests and they are not liable to be exempted. In the OA before the Tribunal concerned, there is a Commissioner's report and plan. it is also seen that at one point of time, the State had a contention that the property is not a forest area. Whatever that be, the Appellate Authority has now felt that the issue regarding tenancy requires reconsideration at the hands of the Land Tribunal. The revision petitioner and others can urge their contentions before the Land Tribunal. Viewed from that angle, it could not be said that there is much grievance for the revision petitioner. 11. The result is that these petitions are without any merits and are liable to be dismissed. I do so, reserving the liberty of both the parties to raise all their contentions CRP NO.446/09 & connected cases 9 before the Land Tribunal. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta CRP NO.446/09 & connected cases 10