THOMAS M C Vs. SREE EMOOR BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law involved in this Original Petition is whether a lease hit by Section 29 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 could be termed as an alienation so as to attract an application under SRO. No. 718/78, which provides for a court fee of only 15/- for filing a suit for recovery of possession. An extent of 327 acres of land belonging to Sree Emoor Bhagavathy Devaswom, Kallekulangara, Akathethara, Palakkad was taken on lease by the petitioner and seven others as per the registered lease deed dated 23.4.1969, executed between them and the trustee of the Devaswom. The lease deed authorizes cutting of trees for the purpose of planting the property with rubber. A lease rent of '5/- per acre was fixed for a period of six years from the commencement of the lease. Thereafter, an increased rent of '7.50 per acre was fixed. The lease was for a period of 36 years commencing from the date of lease.

(2.) The Department of Forests claimed that the property is a private forest which vested in the Government under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The lessees filed applications before the Forest Tribunal claiming exemption under Section 3(3) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The Forest Tribunal allowed the applications. The State and the Conservator of Forests filed M.F.A. No. 567 of 1980 challenging the order passed by the Forest Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State and the Conservator of Forests. Though R.P. No. 272 of 1984 was filed by the appellants therein, that was also dismissed on 23.7.1993.

(3.) The Government, in exercise of the powers under Section 99 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, issued G.O. (MS) No. 238/2002 dated 20.7.2002 to cancel the lease on the ground that the lease was created contrary to Section 29 of the Act. The Government granted an opportunity of being heard to the lessees. Thereafter, a Government Order was issued, by which, the lease was cancelled. The petitioner challenged the order cancelling the lease in O.P. No. 3918 of 2003, which was dismissed by the Division Bench, as per the judgment dated 24.1.2008, holding that, at any rate, the period of 36 years fixed in the lease deed had expired and, therefore, the lessees had no right to continue in possession.