IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 MFA.No. 1296 of 2002(A) ---------------------------------- OA.47/2000 OF FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE. .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER (FORESTS). RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT: ---------------------------------------- MRS.ROSILY,W/O. KIZHAKKARAKKATT JOSEPH, MATTILAYAM P.O., VELLAMUNDA (VIA), NIRAVILPUZHA, WYNAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN, ADV. SRI.P.A.HARISH. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. ------------------------------- M.F.A.NO.1296 OF 2002 (A) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. The respondent's possession over 2.50 acres of land was interfered by the forest officials. They approached the tribunal for a declaration that it was not a private forest and even if it is a private forest, it is entitled to get exemption under Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. Out of the above 2.50 acres, forest officials themselves admitted that 1.26 acres of land was cultivated and 1.24 acres of land alone was under dispute. Tribunal not only found that land was not covered under the M.P.P.F.Act though situated in the Malabar area, but also found that disputed land is cultivated as on the relevant date. It is further found that the cultivations in both disputed and undisputed areas are equal. According to the appellant, part of his residential house is situated in the disputed land and other MFA.1296/02 2 in the undisputed land. Based upon the documentary evidence and oral evidence adduced in this case and the commission report, tribunal found that land in question is not vested with the Government as it was not a private forest on the appointed day. The main contention raised by the appellant is that with respect to another land of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, this Court found that it was a land covered under the M.P.P.F. Act. That land was purchased by the predecessor-in- interest from a Christian priest who obtained it from other persons and finding in that case was that the above land was not a cultivated land and on the date of inspection by the Commissioner, some plants were found there which are of new origin whereas this land is purchased by the predecessor-in- interest of the appellant from a temple and from the Commissioner's report, it was found that it was a cultivated land and it was cultivated even on the appointed date. In these circumstances, merely because part of the land possessed by predecessor-in- interest was private forest, this also cannot be treated as a private forest especially it is a cultivated area that part of the land in question owned by the respondent are not private forest. The findings of the tribunal MFA.1296/02 3 is based on evidence and we see no ground to interfere in the above, and hence, this appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE K.HEMA, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO.1296 OF 2002 (A) --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 12th February, 2008