IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 MFA.No. 91 of 2002(B) ------------------------------- OA. NO. 7/2000 OF FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANTS: --------------------- 1. PATHUTTY, W/O.BAPPUTTY, P.O.KOTTARAKUNNU, VIA-VELLAMUNDA, WYNAD DIST. 2. ALI, S/O.BAPPUTTY, AGED 29 YEARS, P.O.KOTTARAKUNNU, VIA-VELLAMUNDA, WYNAD DIST. 3. AYISHA, D/O.BAPPUTTY, P.O.KOTTARAKUNNU, VIA-VELLAMUNDA, WYNAD DIST. 4. MUHAMMED, S/O.BAPPUTTY, P.O.KOTTARAKUNNU, VIA- VELLAMUNDA, WYNAD DIST. 5. NURUDHIN, S/O.BAPPUTTY, P.O.KOTTARAKUNNU, VIA-VELLAMUNDA, WYNAD DIST. 6. REHMATH, D/O.BAPPUTTY, P.O.KOTTARAKUNNU, VIA-VELLAMUNDA, WYNAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN, ADV. SRI.P.A.HARISH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CUSTODIAN AND CONSERVATION OF FORESTS, OLAVAKKODE CIRCLE, "ARYA BHAVAN", FOREST COMPLEX, RAILWAY COLONY, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P. PRAKASH. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.91 OF 2002 ------------------------------------- Dated 28th February, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Appellant approached the Forest Tribunal for declaration that four acres of land comprising in resurvey No.164 of Thondernad Village of Mannanthody Taluk of Wayanad District is not a private forest. To show that it was not a private forest and they owned the property, they produced purchase certificate (Ext.A1) in favour of K.Bapputty, their predecessor. The above purchase certificate was issued in 1983. They also produced various revenue receipts to show that they paid tax from 1981 to 1998. Tribunal found that boundaries of the property mentioned in the purchase certificate and the petition schedule property are entirely different and, therefore, the burden of proving that appellants are the owners and are in possession of the land is not satisfied. The commission report shows that except one jack tree, there are only small trees aged between 10 to 15 years. Tribunal also noticed that petition schedule property is a hilly area slopped from north to south and the property is full of wild growth consisting of wild grass, lemon grass and Chanakuva and there are no signs of cultivation in the property. Even though it was stated that there was a hut earlier, the commissioner stated that he found no hut or building or remnants of anything at the time of MFA.91/2002 2 inspection. It is also stated that on both sides it was vested forest and petition schedule property is similar to the vested forest in the northern and eastern side. Tribunal relied on the same and found that appellants were not able to prove that the land was not private forest vested in the Government under section 3(1) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting & Assignment) Act . We agree with the findings of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks