IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 660 of 2000()
1. MRS.PADMADJA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :25/02/2009
O R D E R
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