Case: STATE OF KERALA  Vs. JOSEPH

2. In order to appreciate the short controversy involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out few facts. The appellant is the State of Kerala. It was the appellantbefore the High Court whereas the respondents hereinwere the respondents in the appeal out of which this civil appeal. The respondents herein are the owners of 14 acresof land situated in Thenkara Village of Mannarghat Taluk in Kerala. This 14 acres land was part of 47.35 acres of total land, which was purchased jointly by the family members of the respondents in the name of the respondents, their father and. It is thecase of there existed rubber plantation on this land. In addition, the respondents also are the purchaser of the land planted Teak and other trees on the land. It is also thecase of therespondents that a partition amongst their family members took place as a result of which out of 47.35 acres of land, 23.5 acres of land was allotted to the respondents and their father.

Reasoning:
22. In our opinion, the question as to what is true interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act and especially Section 3(3) and the other question regarding holding of the land and its intended use by the respondents stand already decided by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in its order dated 10.05.2007 in Paras 18 and 19 quoted above. The State cannot, therefore, be allowed to raise the same plea again in the second round of litigation after remand. This Court in paras 18 and 19 explained the object and purpose of Section 3(3) of the Act and then holding that such provision has to be construed liberally examined the facts of this very case and set aside the order of the High Courtin the earlier round of litigation. The remand of the case to the High Court was to examine the issue in the light of interpretation made by this Court.That apart, in our view, the Tribunal has recorded seven findings of fact as set out above in para 10 while allowing the respondents? application filed under Section 8 and the same were not interfered with by the High. In our opinion, all the seven findings are otherwise found tobe based on documentary evidence filed by the respondents and the same were properly appreciated by the Tribunal keeping in view the two requirements of sub-section(3) of Section 3 of the Act, namely, that the title was derived by the respondents in relation to the land in question prior to the appointed day, i.e.,10.05.1971 and second, the land in question was found in actual useby the respondents for their personal cultivation even prior to the appointed. In the light of these two findings recorded by the Tribunal on facts and upheld by the High Court in the impugned order after remand, which were not found perverse or against any evidence or illegal in any way, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order.