STATE OF KERALA Vs. AYISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal has been filed under S.8A of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 by the State and the Custodian of Vested Forests challenging the common judgment in O. A. No. 244 of 1981 and connected applications of the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode. There are no appeals filed from O. A. Nos. 248/81, 257/81, 260/81 and 166/81. Hence, they have become final. In view of the large number of respondents and abatement and impleadment proceedings, the appeal could be listed for final hearing after a good number of years. The Forest Tribunal had allowed the applications, but due to the peculiar facts of the case had directed that the parties can claim possession from the custodian only after production of the final decree in O. S. No. 39 of 1956 on the file of the Sub Court, Tellicherry. At the time of admission of the appeal, by order dated 9-4-1987 in C. M. P. No. 1 1407 of 1987 stay of passing of the final decree had been issued. It is submitted that the matter is remaining static thereafter.

(2.) Mr. James Vincent, Special Government Pleader (Forests) had challenged the orders in the Original Applications mainly on four grounds. According to him, there was a basic error in the applications filed as the applicants did not satisfy the minimum eligibility prescribed by S.3(2) or S.3(3) of the Act as they were neither owners of the vested forests nor in possession of the properties. According to him, the applicants had no title on the appointed day, viz. 10-5-1971. It was next urged by him that the pleadings and the evidence at best showed that the applicants had only intention to cultivate the properties and had never engaged in cultivation, entitling them to claim back the vested forest. He had also put up a contention that several of the applicants had earlier submitted applications before the Forest Tribunal, but the applications were rejected. It was also urged that the burden of proof that the applicants had only lands within the ceiling limit under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, had not been attempted to be discharged by them. It was his prayer therefore that the orders of the Tribunal be set aside as he had not properly adverted to the facts as also the principles of law while disposing of the applications.

(3.) Advocate Sumathy Dandapani had appeared for the respondents and opposed the appeal. She had submitted that the Tribunal had examined all the relevant aspects of the matter and that orders do not require to be interfered with. In view of the common nature of the contentions and that quite a few party respondents had not entered appearance, we are dealing with the issues as a whole.