JOJY JACOB Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER sought in this Original Petition is to quash Ext.P5, a notification issued under R.2A of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts of the case are that the petitioners are owners of 50.1 acres of land situated in Survey Nos.509/1, 509/2 and 509/3 of Thodernadu Village in Mananthavady Taluk, Wayanad District. It is stated that in respect of the said land, the petitioners' predecessors in interest, being cultivating tenants, were issued Exts.P3 to P3(c), certificates of purchase under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, way back in 1973. According to the petitioners, they purchased the property, which was already a coffee plantation, by six sale deeds executed in 1992.

(3.) MAIN contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the property was already the subject matter of proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It is stated that recognizing the fact that the petitioners' predecessors were cultivating tenants as on 1.1.1970 the property was assigned to them in 1973. It is stated that the property continued to be coffee plantation as before. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the property having been recognized by the Government, as a plantation as on 1.1.1970,it could not have been treated as a private forest as on 10.5.1971, the appointed date under the Act. It is also their contention that under S.6 of the Act, demarcation of boundaries of a private forest vested has to be done as soon as may be after the appointed date. It is stated that R.2A of the Rules require that once the boundary is demarcated, notification should be published immediately thereafter. It is contended that as against these statutory requirements, Ext.P5 notification was issued only on 04.05.2001, almost after 30 years from the appointed date. It is stated that for that reason, there is noncompliance with the statutory provisions and therefore, the vesting and the consequential actions are illegal. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the judgment of this Court in O.P.No.28097/2000 dated 27.9.2006. It was further contended that having regard to the long lapse of time, the petitioners are seriously prejudiced. According to the learned counsel, even if the petitioners are to move the Tribunal constituted under S.8 of the Act for settlement of disputes, in order to seek exemption from vesting, the petitioners will have to prove that the land in question was a plantation as on 10.5.1971. It is stated that at this distance of time, it is impossible for the petitioners to adduce evidence on the said question of fact. Learned counsel for the petitioners therefore contended that Ext.P5 notification and all other proceedings initiated against them should be declared as illegal.