IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 MFA.No. 1384 of 2002() ---------------------- OA.48/2000 of FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT: -------------------- V.P. VARGHESE, S/O. FRANCIS, VENAKKUZHIYIL, VARAMPATTAM P.O., KAPPILKKALAM, POZHUTHANA VIA, WYNAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER(FORESTS) THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.8256/2002 IN M.F.A.NO.1384/2002 DISMISSED 20/02/2008 SD/- J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE SD/- K.HEMA, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss J.B. Koshy & K.Hema, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A. No.1384 of 2002 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. Appellant/Claimant filed an application for a declaration that 1.10 acres of land in survey No.54 (resurvey No.283) of Padinharathara village, Taluk Vaithiri is not a private forest. The area is situated in Malabar. First question to be considered is whether it is a private forest as defined under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act. As per the findings of the tribunal, it was not an area covered under the M.P.P.F. Act, but, at the same time, tribunal found that it was a forest. In any event, appellants were not able to prove that it was not a forest and burden is on the appellant to prove the same. The Commissioner reported that the area in question was full of wild growth consisting of wild grass, lemon grass, bushes and creepers and there are no signs of any kind of cultivation or there are no construction or structures in the disputed property. The tribunal also noticed that even though revenue receipts were produced, it is only relating to nearby properties and not relating to this property. Two sides of the M.F.A.No. 1384/2002 2 property are vested forest. The tribunal further noticed that even though purchase certificate was produced, the above purchase certificate was issued not in the name of the appellant who is V.P. Varghese, Son of Francis, Venakkuzhiyil House, Varampattam P.O., but, in the name of Menakuzhiyil Varghese, Pappanam mala Padinjarethara and no records were also produced by the appellant to prove that the above person is the appellant. Therefore, there was no evidence to show that when the Act came into force, the land was under cultivation and the appellant has got any right in the petition schedule property. Taking into account all these circumstances, the tribunal rejected the application. We are of the view that the reasons stated by the tribunal are valid and cogent and appellant was not able to prove the contentions raised to show that the land in question was not a vested forest. In the above circumstances, we see no ground in the appeal. Appeal dismissed. J.B.Koshy Judge K. Hema Judge vaa M.F.A.No. 1384/2002 3 J.B. KOSHY AND K.HEMA ,JJ. ------------------------------------- M.F.A. No. 1384 of 2002 ------------------------------------- Judgment Dated:20th February, 2008