IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 MFA.No. 660 of 2000() --------------------- OA.94/1998 of FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANTS: -------------- 1. MRS.PADMAJA, D/O.LATE V.M.RADHAKRISHNA MENON ARUNODAYAM, PO PUTHIYARA, CALICUT - 4. 2. MRS.SHYLAJA, D/O.LATE V.M.RADHAKRISHNA MENON, ARUNODAYAM, PO PUTHIYARA, CALICUT - 4. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS, OLAVAKKOD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.M.P.PRAKASH THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.F.A.NO.660/2000 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.3717/2000 IN M.F.A.NO.660/2000 DISMISSED. SD/- K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. 25.2.2009 SD/- M.L.JOSEPHFRANCIS, JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. --------------------------------- M.F.A.No.660 OF 2000 --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The applicants, in O.A.No.94/98 before the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode, are the appellants. The applicants claimed title and possession over 11.25 acres of land in re-survey No.1/1 of Puthuppadi Village of Kozhikode Taluk. They got assignment of leasehold right of their predecessor-in-interest over the property, as per document nos. 1689/1990 and 1692/1990 of Sub Registrar's Office, Thamarassery. They claimed that the property was a rubber plantation before the appointed day, 10.5.1971. It was part of the rubber estate of the vendor Company exempted by the Taluk Land Board as per proceedings No.TLB(K)522/73 dated 21.1.1977. According to them, the files of the Rubber Board also would show that the said property was part of rubber plantation. Before executing the aforementioned assignment deeds, sanction of the District Collector was also obtained, as there was a prohibition imposed by the Collector, M.F.A.No.660/2000 2 concerning the transfer of all properties covered by Re-survey No.1/1 of Puthuppadi Village. Since the forest officials started interfering with their possession over the property, the Original Application was filed. 2. The respondents resisted the application contending that the properties claimed by the applicants form part of private forest vested in the Government under the provisions of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. They form part of VFC item No.26, having an extent of 1399 hectares of land called Pataramedu Velliyara Vallathiplavu Malavaram. The notification was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 25.1.1977. So, the claim is barred by limitation. Further, this being private forest vested in the Government, on 10.5.1971, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner did not have any title or possession over the property. 3. The Tribunal tried this Original Application ,along with O.A.No.73/1998, and dismissed both the applications by a common judgment. The Tribunal relying on the Commissioner's M.F.A.No.660/2000 3 report found that there was not even a single rubber tree in the scheduled property and that trees belonging to wild species were growing there. Further, it was also noticed that the applicants did not have a consistent case, regarding the conversion of the land into rubber plantation. The Tribunal found that there was no material on record to show that, on the appointed day, it was covered by rubber plantation. So, the Original Application was dismissed, along with the connected application. Therefore, the aggrieved applicants, in both the Original Applications, have filed the appeals. The connected case M.F.A.No.690/2000 was already dismissed by this Court on 16.11.2006. 4. The appellants, mainly, canvased three points before us. First point is that Annexure A13, proceedings of the Taluk Land Board, has exempted the property of the vendor, which was covered by rubber plantation. The property assigned in favour of the appellants was part of that exempted property. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that Ext.X1, file of the Rubber Board, would show that the property was a rubber plantation before 10.5.1971. Further, before executing Exts.A8 M.F.A.No.660/2000 4 and A9, sanction was granted by the District Collector, as per Ext.A6. The same would also fortify the contention of the appellants, it is submitted. 5. Going by the Ext.A13 and Ext.X1, it is evident that the Company, which assigned the property in favour of the appellants, owned a rubber estate in resurvey 1/1 of Puthuppadi Village . But, there is no evidence on record to show that the O.A. schedule property will form part of the aforementioned property covered by the rubber plantation. Same is the case of Ext.A6. The District Collector lifted the ban against transfer of certain extent of land in resurvey No.1/1 of Puthuppadi Village. But, whether the scheduled property, is part of the above said property, so exempted, is not evident from the materials on record. Further, we notice that the schedule of Exts.A8 and A9 documents would show that the property assigned in favour of the appellants was a rubber estate. But, the Commissioner's report, Ext.C1, would show that the scheduled property claimed to be in the possession of the appellants does not contain even a single rubber plant. Therefore, we find nothing wrong with the decision of the Forest M.F.A.No.660/2000 5 Tribunal, rendered disbelieving the case of the appellants and rejecting the Original Application. We notice that the decision of the Tribunal is supported by reasons. We have independently examined the materials on record. As noticed earlier, there is no evidence to show that the O.A. schedule property is part of the property treated as rubber plantation by the competent authorities. In the result, the appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps