IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 MFA.No. 486 of 2002(E) --------------------------------- OA.64/2000 of FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANTS: --------------------- 1. E.J.ABRAHAM (DIED). 2. JOSEPH E.ABRAHAM, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.E.J.ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT THENARUVI ESTATE, KOOMBARA P.O., VIA-KOODARANJI, KOZHIKODE. 3. MRS.ALICE ABRAHAM, AGED 68 YEARS, W/O.LATE E.J.ABRAHAM, REWSIDING AT 29/1938, PIPE LINE LINK ROAD, NEAR ULLAS NAGAR COLONY, NELLIKODE DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 4. MRS.KATHRIKUTTY MATHEW, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O.LATE E.J.ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT KURUVINAKUNNEL, THIDANAD P.O., KOTTAYAM . 5. ANNAMMA ABRAHAM, AGED 47 YEARS, D/O.LATE E.J.ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT 29/1938, PIPE LINK ROAD, NEAR ULLAD NAGAR COLONY, NELLIKODE DESOM. 6. MRS.ELIZABETH GEORGE, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.LATE E.J.ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT 2A, NARIUMPARAMBIL COURT, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 018. 7. MRS. THRESSIAMMA BINOY LOUIS, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.LATE E.J.ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT NO.3, LONG BEACH, APARTMENTS, IVTH SEA WARD ROAD, VALMIKI NAGAR, THIRUVANNIYUR, MADRAS-41. 8. MRS. CICILY JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.LATE E.J.ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT C302, SAROJINI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110 023. M.F.A. 486/2002 9. MRS. LUCY ABRAHAM, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.LATE E.J.ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT P.B.NO.2144, ABU DHABI, U A E., PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NELLIKODE DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 10. MRS. JOHN ABRAHAM, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.LATE E.J.ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT 289/1938, PIPE LINK ROAD, NEAR ULLAS NAGAR COLONY, NELLIKODE DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 11. MR.GEORGE ABRAHAM, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.LATE E.J.ABRAHAM, RESIDING 29/1938, PIPE LINE LINK ROAD, NEAR ULLAS NAGAR COLONY, NELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE. 12. NIRMALA CHANDY, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.LATE E.J.ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT 3E SEA SHELLS, 1ST SEA WARD ROAD, VALMIKI NAGAR, THIRUVANNIYUR, MADRAS-41. 13. RITA ABRAHAM, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.LATE E.J.ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT 29/1938, PIPE LINE LINK ROAD, NEAR ULLAS NAGAR COLONY, NELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO TJHE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS, AND CONSERVATION OF FORESTS, VESTED FORESTS, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SPL.GOVT.PLEADER (FOREST) SRI.M.P.PRAKASH THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.486 OF 2002 ------------------------------------- Dated 7th February, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Appellants claimed that their possession of 20.23 hectares of planted area are being interfered by the forest officials and hence they approached the Forest Tribunal for a declaration that it is not a private forest vested in the Government under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act (in short `the Act'). It is also contended that even if it is a forest, they are entitled for the exemption under section 3(2) or 3(3) of the Act. Tribunal found as follows: “Even though there is evidence to show that the original applicant was holding the schedule property as before the appointed day and he was holding the land with the interntion to cultivate the same, he failed to establish that he was not liable to account for excess land when the schedule property is also taken into account. In the circumstances, I have to find that the applicant is not entitled for the exemption claimed u/s 3(3) of the Act.” According to the Tribunal, the appellants are not entitled for the exemption under section 3(3) of the Act only because of non-production of the evidence to show that they are not in possession of excess land as MFA.486/2002 2 per the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. During the pendency of the appeal, they filed C.M.P.7454/02 producing the report of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (L.R) as well as order of the Taluk Land Board to show the extent of the land possessed by them and to show that these lands are not excess lands. This matter has to be considered by the Tribunal. Whether the appellants are possessing excess land or whether the entire extent of land are excess land or only part of the land can be exempted etc. can be considered after perusing records and evidence. According to the appellants, even Ext.P2 would support their case. The questions whether appellants are possessing excess land, what is the extent they are entitled to be exempted under section 3(3) are only to be considered. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 24.3.2008. With regard to the question of cealing area, both sides are allowed to adduce further evidence. Lower court records received, if any, and documents filed along with C.M.P.No.7454/02 shall be forwarded to the Tribunal as early as possible. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks