IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA No. 1384 of 2002()
1. V.P. VARGHESE, S/O. FRANCIS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER(FORESTS)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :20/02/2008
O R D E R
J.B. Koshy & K.Hema, JJ.
————————————–
M.F.A. No.1384 of 2002
—————————————
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008
Judgment
Koshy,J.
Appellant/Claimant filed an application for a declaration
that 1.10 acres of land in survey No.54 (resurvey No.283) of
Padinharathara village, Taluk Vaithiri is not a private forest. The
area is situated in Malabar. First question to be considered is
whether it is a private forest as defined under the Kerala Private
Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act. As per the findings of the
tribunal, it was not an area covered under the M.P.P.F. Act, but, at
the same time, tribunal found that it was a forest. In any event,
appellants were not able to prove that it was not a forest and
burden is on the appellant to prove the same. The Commissioner
reported that the area in question was full of wild growth consisting
of wild grass, lemon grass, bushes and creepers and there are no
signs of any kind of cultivation or there are no construction or
structures in the disputed property. The tribunal also noticed that
even though revenue receipts were produced, it is only relating to
nearby properties and not relating to this property. Two sides of the
M.F.A.No. 1384/2002 2
property are vested forest. The tribunal further noticed that even
though purchase certificate was produced, the above purchase
certificate was issued not in the name of the appellant who is V.P.
Varghese, Son of Francis, Venakkuzhiyil House, Varampattam P.O.,
but, in the name of Menakuzhiyil Varghese, Pappanam mala
Padinjarethara and no records were also produced by the appellant
to prove that the above person is the appellant. Therefore, there
was no evidence to show that when the Act came into force, the
land was under cultivation and the appellant has got any right in the
petition schedule property. Taking into account all these
circumstances, the tribunal rejected the application. We are of the
view that the reasons stated by the tribunal are valid and cogent
and appellant was not able to prove the contentions raised to show
that the land in question was not a vested forest. In the above
circumstances, we see no ground in the appeal. Appeal dismissed.
J.B.Koshy
Judge
K. Hema
Judge
vaa
M.F.A.No. 1384/2002 3
J.B. KOSHY
AND
K.HEMA ,JJ.
————————————-
M.F.A. No. 1384 of 2002
————————————-
Judgment
Dated:20th February, 2008