M.MOIDEEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant before the Forest Tribunal is in appeal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, found that the applicant was unsuccessful in proving that the scheduled property was not a private forest as on 10/5/1971 and that the claim regarding exemption cannot be sustained, since he was not the owner of the land as on the appointed day of the Kerala Private Forest [Vesting and Assignment] Act, 1971 [for brevity, 'the Vesting Act].

(2.) Sri.V.V.Surendran, learned Counsel for the applicant, submitted that the Commissioner's report clearly demarcated 93 cents from the total area scheduled as the disputed property. The objection to the commission report filed by the Department clearly indicated the same to be the only disputed property around which cairns were erected and the objection was only regarding the extent, which, as claimed by the Department, was 1.03 Acres as against the measured 93 cents. Learned Special Government Pleader Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan resisted the appeal and sought for upholding the order passed.

(3.) The Tribunal framed three issues, (i) of limitation, (ii) applicability of the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act,1949 [for brevity, 'the MPPF Act'] and (iii) the claim of exemption under S.3(2) or 3(3) of the Vesting Act. The ground of limitation was found in favour of the applicant, since there was absolutely no proof offered, of the publication having been made as statutorily prescribed. We find no reason to interfere with the same. With respect to the applicability of the MPPF Act, after referring to the Commissioner's report it was specifically held that there was no proof offered that the area was not covered under the MPPF Act, which even according to a binding precedent in State of Kerala v. Kunhiraman [1990 (1) KLT 382] was the bounden duty of the applicant. The exclusion under Clause (A) to (C) of S.2(f)(1)(i) was also found to be not substantiated with any evidence. As for the claim of exemption, it was found that the applicant being a subsequent assignee, cannot maintain the application under S.8 of the Vesting Act.