STATE OF KERALA Vs. MAMBARAKIBIL GREGORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The forest land in dispute was owned by a firm called "pizhaku Trust". It is not disputed that the Trust was really a firm of which the four respondents were partners. The respondents applied to the custodian of vested forests under the Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 ('the Act') , for permission to retain possession of the lands to which they were entitled under 'the Act'. The respondents had claimed separate areas for each of them on the ground that the firm stood dissolved on 1/10/1970. The custodian rejected their claim and came to the conclusion that the respondents were entitled to only one unit in the name of the firm. The respondents approached the Forest tribunal against the order of the custodian. The tribunal rejected the applications filed by the respondents. Against the order of the tribunal, the respondents went in appeal before the High court under 'the Act'. The High court allowed the appeals filed by the respondents and set aside the order of the custodian and of the Forest tribunal. The High court came to the conclusion that partnership stood dissolved by a Resolution dated 1/10/1970 and thereafter by the Udampady dated 7/10/1970, the partners had divided the land equally among themselves. The High court held that each of the respondents was entitled to 20 acres of land under the Act. This appeal by the State of Kerala is against the judgment of the High court.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have been taken through the judgment of the High court. We find no infirmity in the finding reached by the High court to the effect that the firm stood dissolved and as such the respondents were entitled to the permissible area in their individual rights. We are, however, of the view that the High court fell into error in not adverting to the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 ('the Reforms Act'). The entitlement of a person under 'the Act' is subject to the ceiling provided under Section 82 of 'the Reforms Act'. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the claim of the respondents under Section 3 (3 of 'the Act' read with Section 82 of 'the Reforms Act'. While granting relief to the respondents, the High court did not keep in view the provisions of 'the Reforms Act'.

(3.) We, therefore, remand the case to the Forest tribunal, Kozhikode, with the direction to hold an enquiry under the provisions of 'the Act' and 'the Reforms Act' and thereafter determine the permissible area in respect of each of the respondents. We further direct the tribunal to finally dispose of the matter within four months from the receipt of the records. The appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.