IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 MFA.No. 444 of 2002(D) -------------------------------- OA.61/1998 of FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS. ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN, FOREST COMPLEX, OLAVAKKODE CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.P.PRAKASH RESPONDENTS: APPLICANTS. ------------------------ 1. KUNJUKUTTY AMMA,D/O.LATE DEVAKI AMMA, KONDATH PUTHENVEETTIL, ALANGADU AMSOM DESOM, KADAMBAZHIPURAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. ITHUKUTTY AMMA, D/O.LATE DEVAKI AMMA, 3. RAMAKRISHNAN, D/O.LATE DEVAKI AMMA. 4. DEVAKI, D/O.ITHUKUTTY AMMA AND W/O. NARAYANKUTTY. 5. ARAVINDAN, S/O.ITHUKUTTY AMMA. 6. VALSALA, D/O. ITHUKUTTY AMMA. 7. SUJATHA, D/O. ITHUKUTTY AMMA. 8. UDAYABHANU, S/O. ITHUKUTTY AMMA. M.F.A. NO.444/2002 9. ANIL KUMAR (MINOR) ALIAS RAVISANKAR, S/O. ITHUKUTTY AMMA. 10. VIJAYALAKSHMI, D/O. KUNJUKUTTY AMMA AND W/O. CHANDRAN. 11. VENUGOPALAN, S/O. KUNJUKUTTY AMMA. 12. JAYACHANDRAN, S/O. KUNJUKUTTY AMMA. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R1,3,TO 7 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.444 OF 2002 ------------------------------------- Dated 1st September, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . The appellant State questions the award of the Forest Tribunal in so far as it allowed the petition filed by the respondents in respect of 54 cents of land. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal found that the land in question is not a private forest. Admittedly, the land in question is not covered under the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act (M.P.P.F. Act). If it is not covered under the M.P.P.F. Act, it should be proved that it is a forest or coming under the purview of the Keral Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act (in short `the Act). But, the Tribunal found that there are no forest trees in the area and it is not a waste land which are enclaves within the wooded areas. Only some cultivated palmyra trees were found by the Commissioner and it was also found that the property in question and the residential property of the respondents lie contiguous. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal found that it is not a private forest. If it is not a private forest and it is a cultivated property, it will not vest in the Government under section 3(1) of the Act and, therefore, there is no question of exemption under section 3(2) or 3(3) of the Act. Since the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence MFA.444/2002 2 found that it is not a private forest on the relevant date and it was a cultivated property when the Act came into force, we are of the view that no interference is required in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE tks