STATE OF KERALA Vs. C.J. ALEXANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Kerala and the Custodian of Vested Forests, Kozhikode have filed this appeal against the order passed by the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode in O. A. No. 232 of 1981 dated 20th October 1984. The matter arises under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The said Act came into force on 10th May 1971. The respondent herein was the petitioner in O. A. No. 232 of 1981, He filed an application under S.8 of the Act, for settlement of the dispute, and claimed relief in respect of five acres of land in Sy. No. 1226 of Muppeyanad Village of Vythiri Taluk, on the ground that the same has been brought under cultivation prior to the appointed day. In the application, it was stated that tree growths are available in the area and that there was a small shed, wherein the applicant is residing. He also relied on Pattayam No. 953 of 1978 issued by the Land Tribunal, Sultan Battery. His plea was that the area in dispute was taken on oral lease from one K. V. Gopalan prior to 1964 and it was planted mainly with coffee and other agricultural crops. Due to pest, drought, etc., a good number of plants were destroyed. The area in dispute is in his occupation. On 2nd September 1981, the forest officials obstructed the applicant in his agricultural operations and uprooted some coffee plants and destroyed the shed. According to him, the area in dispute is not a private forest and it did not vest in the Government.

(2.) The appellants denied the allegations contained in the application and submitted that the total extent of the vested forest, comprised in Sy. Nos. 1186, 1187, 1208, 1215 and 1226 is 2200 hectares. The said vested forest does not contain any cultivated area. The department exempted all developed and cultivated areas. There are no boundary marks to identity the five acres of land claimed by the applicant. The vested forest area is a thick forest, having spontaneous tree growth. No portion of this area was cultivated by any person. The claim that there are shade trees was denied. The jungle trees and spontaneous trees available point out that it was a natural forest. There was no shed, as contended by the applicant. The pattayam relied on is not valid and binding on the appellants. The private forest vested in the Government is Government property. The lease in favour of the applicant was denied and was contended to be invalid.

(3.) The Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode posed the question as to whether the applicant is entitled to claim relief under S.3(2) of the Act or not. It was made clear that the applicant was not entitled to any relief under S.3(3) of the Act. The Forest Tribunal further posed the question that the applicant has to satisfy the Tribunal that he is the owner as denied in the Act and that he had brought the land under cultivation prior to the appointed day. After referring to the evidence of PW.1, Ext. P1 patta and Exts. P2 to 5 revenue receipts, the Tribunal held that the appellants had not challenged Ext. P1 by way of appeal or in any other appropriate proceedings, that Ext. P-1 has become final and so, the applicant before it is an owner. The Tribunal further adverted to the evidence of P. W. 1, Ext. P-6 complaint filed by the applicant before the Village Officer, and the evidence of PW. 2, and held that the land was brought under cultivation prior to the appointed day. It was observed that the report of the Commissioner specifying the age of the coffee plants is not a circumstance in favour of the applicant. In fact, the Commissioner's report showed that the coffee plants were aged three years and eight years. In the above view, the application was allowed and it was declared that the five acres of land in Sy. No. 1226 of Muppeyanad Village is not liable to be vested in the Government. It is from the aforesaid decision of the Forest Tribunal dated 20th October 1984, the State and the Custodian of Vested Forests have come up in appeal.