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 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 MFA.No. 622 of 2003(E) ---------------------- OA.10/1999 of FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANTS:RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS COMMITTE, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD-2. BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.P.PRAKASH RESPONDENT:APPLICANT: ----------------------------------------- SANKARA NARAYANAN, S/O. KULANGARA MEENAKSHI AMMA, CHOTHUKULANGARA HOUSE, P.O. KEEZHUR, VIA. PANAMANNA, OTTAPPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.RAGHUNATH THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B. Koshy & Thomas P. Joseph, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A. No. 622 of 2003 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. Respondent in this appeal approached the Forest Tribunal when police officers disturbed his possession of two acres and 45 cents of land in Survey No.9/2A in Thrikketteri village of Ottappalam taluk. The Tribunal found that it was a cultivated land on the appointed day. Ext.A2 is one of the document pertaining to the property. The Tribunal considered the above and found as follows: "The fact that the schedule property was described as a cultivated paramba in 1960 in Ext.A2 is a circumstance which leads to the conclusion that the schedule property was a cultivated property prior to the appointed day." The Commissioners also found that the land was cultivated with cardamom and also found that there were no wild trees in the area prior to 1971. The joint commissioners also found that old kayyala was there. Considering Ext.A1 deed, depositions and commissioner’s report, the Tribunal found that it was a cultivated land on the appointed day. It is also found that the property was not covered under the M.P.P.F. Act. If that be so, it will not come under the private forest itself. Apart from the above, the Tribunal also found that even if it is a private forest, they are entitled to get exemption under section 3 M.F.A.Nos. 622/2003 2 (2) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act. Title to the land was also produced. It is contended that there is difficulty in identification. Joint Commissioners also visited the land with the representative of the appellant as well as the respondent and there was no dispute regarding the description or identity of the land. In these circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact and no interference is required. Appeal is dismissed. J.B.Koshy Judge Thomas P. Joseph Judge vaa M.F.A.Nos. 622/2003 3 J.B. KOSHY AND THOMAS P.JOSEPH,JJ. ------------------------------------- M.F.A. No.622/2003 ------------------------------------- Judgment Dated:18th August, 2008