IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 446 of 2009()
1. N.K. SIVARAMAN, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. RECEIVER, KAVALAPPARA ESTATE,
3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF
For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :07/04/2010
O R D E R
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
————————————————————–
CRP Nos.446,462, 463, 464, 465,467 of 2009
—————————————————————
Dated 7th April 2010
Order
Six appeals namely AA Nos.36, 37, 38, 39, 40
and 41 of 1996 filed by the Divisional Forest Officer,
Nenmara Division, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad, were allowed
by the appellate authority (Land Reforms) and the matter
was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration.
The said order is assailed in these Revision Petitions.
Since common questions are thrown up for consideration
in these revisions, they are heard together and disposed of
by this common order. The facts and exhibits in CRP
No.446/09 are being referred to hereinafter.
2. The revision petitioner herein is the first
respondent in AA No.41/96. The petitioner claimed to have
purchased 2.33 acres of land in Survey No.428/J/5 in
Kavassery No.1 Village in Alathur Taluk from one
C.P.Narayanan Nair, who is the predecessor in interest of
CRP NO.446/09 & connected cases 2
the property. It is pointed out that the janmam right
belongs to Kavalappara Estate and the petitioner
purchased the kanam right from Narayanan Nair.
3. It is pointed out that there were 20.27 acres of
land comprised in Survey No.428/J-5. It was the subject
matter of ceiling proceedings No.170/73 before the Taluk
Land Board, Alathur. The predecessor in interest of the
revision petitioner contended that the entire 20.27 acres of
land is private forest and is liable to be excluded from the
ceiling limit. The Government opposed the claim of the
declarant and it was found that Narayanan Nair was liable
to surrender 8.74 acres of land as excess land and he
could retain only 11.53 acres in ceiling area. No appeal
was filed by the State against the said order and so, the
said order has become final. From the properties which
were held by Narayanan Nair, the petitioner purchased a
portion of the same. In fact, the petitioner in the other
revision petitions are closely related to the petitioner in
CRP No.446/09.
CRP NO.446/09 & connected cases 3
4. The revision petitioner would point out that
later, SM proceedings were initiated by the Land Board and
purchase certificates was issued to the revision petitioner
and others. The revision petitioner in CRP No.446/09
started a metal crusher unit in his property and invested
considerable amount in that venture. When electricity
connection was applied for, the Forest Range Officer took
out an objection. Therefore, the petitioner approached this
Court by filing OP No.1654/94. The said OP was disposed
of directing the petitioner to approach the Tribunal
constituted under the Private Forest Vesting and
Assignment Act. The petitioner thereafter filed OA
No.114/94 to have declared that the extent of property
earned by him did not vest in the State. That was allowed.
The Custodian of Forests filed an appeal before the Forest
Tribunal. Thereafter, the first respondent filed an appeal
against the order of the Coyalmannam Land Tribunal in SM
proceedings No.161/89 and other proceedings, raising a
contention that the Forest Department was not made a
CRP NO.446/09 & connected cases 4
party to the SM proceedings and the orders are not binding
on them and are invalid. The revision petitioner and other
filed objections in the said appeal. The Appellate Authority
allowed the appeals and ordered the Tribunal to set aside
the patta issued in SM proceedings and to issue notice to
all interested parties. The matter was remanded to the
Forest Tribunal for fresh consideration. In the meanwhile,
the property held by the petitioner in CRP 446/09 along
with another item of property was notified as ecologically
fragile land under the relevant Act. The petitioner
challenged the notification under the said Act in OA
No.45/08. A commission was taken out in that OA and the
Commissioner reported that there is no natural vegetation
or forest and reported that the property is planted with
rubber. The petitioner assails the order of the Appellate
Authority, remanding the case to the Land Tribunal.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
pointed out that the remand was quite uncalled for since
the Land Board had found that the extent of property held
CRP NO.446/09 & connected cases 5
by the petitioners is liable to be reduced from the holding of
the declarant and also that the Land Tribunal has given
purchase certificates to the revision petitioner and others.
6. In the light of these facts, the question to be
considered is whether these properties are liable to be
treated as forests.
7. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader
pointed out that the mere fact that the Land Board has held
that the properties are not liable to be accounted by the
declarant, is not binding on the Forest Tribunal, which has
to determine the issue independently. It is admitted fact,
according to the learned Government Pleader that the
Custodian of Forests was not a party to the SM
proceedings in which purchase certificates were given to
the revision petitioner and others. It is those orders that are
challenged in the various appeals before the Appellate
Authority. The Appellate Authority, rightly allowed the
appeals and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal
concerned. The learned Government Pleader, in support of
CRP NO.446/09 & connected cases 6
his contentions, relied on the the decision reported in State
of Kerala v. Popular Estates (2004(12) SCC 434).
8. It is true that the land held by the petitioner
was bought from Narayanan Nair, who was entitled to hold
only 11.53 acres of land. In fact, the entire property was
purchased by the members of the same family. It appears
that these persons were able to get purchase certificates
said to have been obtained as per the order in the SM
Proceedings by the concerned Land Tribunal. It is to be
noticed that the Custodian of Forests was not a party to
the said proceedings. The Custodian of Forests felt
aggrieved by the order since according to him, the property
fell within the ambit of Private Forests (Vesting and
Assignment) Act and purchase certificates ought not have
been granted. It is for that reason, the appeals were filed.
9. It is true that the revision petitioner had
produced several documents before the Appellate Authority
in respect of their claims. But, the fact remains that the
appeals filed by the Divisional Forest Officer were allowed
CRP NO.446/09 & connected cases 7
by the Appellate Authority, holding that none of the affected
persons were parties to the SM Proceedings, including the
owner and the intermediaries. In this context, the decision
relied on by the petitioner in State of Kerala v. Popular
Estates (supra) may be referred to. In paragraph 11 of the
said decision, it has been observed as follows :
“Thus, it is not possible to say that the decision of the
Taluk Land Board had become final. Secondly, the Taluk
Land Board was only concerned with the issue as to
whether the lands held by the respondents were liable to be
exempted from the ceiling limits. As long as the land fell into
one of the exempted categories, the board was not
concerned with the exact category under which the land fell
since both private forest and plantation are exempted
categories. Apart from the determination of the extent of the
exempted land, the Board was strictly not requited to go into
the question as to whether the land was plantation or private
forest. For both these reasons, we are unable to accept that
the decision of the Taluk Land Board could operate as res
judicata and prejudiced the rights of the State Government
before the Forest Tribunal.”
10. In the light of the above decision, it is not
open for the revision petitioner to contend that because the
Land Board has not taken the extent of land in the
CRP NO.446/09 & connected cases 8
possession of the petitioners as holdings held by the
declarant, it does not mean that the Land Tribunal is bound
by that order. Going by the above decision, the Land
Tribunal can independently determine the claim of the
petitioner and others. The definite stand of the State is that
these properties are private forests and they are not liable
to be exempted. In the OA before the Tribunal concerned,
there is a Commissioner’s report and plan. it is also seen
that at one point of time, the State had a contention that the
property is not a forest area. Whatever that be, the
Appellate Authority has now felt that the issue regarding
tenancy requires reconsideration at the hands of the Land
Tribunal. The revision petitioner and others can urge their
contentions before the Land Tribunal. Viewed from that
angle, it could not be said that there is much grievance for
the revision petitioner.
11. The result is that these petitions are without
any merits and are liable to be dismissed. I do so, reserving
the liberty of both the parties to raise all their contentions
CRP NO.446/09 & connected cases 9
before the Land Tribunal.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sta
CRP NO.446/09 & connected cases 10