MOHAMMED RAFEEQ Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the applicant before the Forest Tribunal under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting & Assignment) Act, 1971 ( for brevity 'the Vesting Act'). As per the application, exemption from vesting was sought to 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 123/1 of Koppam Village, Ottapalam Taluk of Palakkad District. According to the applicant the property belonged to the jenmam of Pulassery mana from whom the scheduled property was purchased by four brothers as per a document of 1965. The brothers were in occupation and possession of the property from its purchase and the same was cultivated with agricultural products. The applicants purchased the property in the year 1999 and continued to raise seasonal crops in the scheduled property. The forest officials prevented the workers of the applicant from entering into the property as on 20/1/2000 upon which the applicant approached this Court with an OP. The OP was disposed of with a direction to approach the Tribunal within a specified time. The applicant was not able to approach the Tribunal within the time stipulated and an application was filed for extension of the same, which was allowed. There was also an interim order passed in C.M.P 4640/2002 permitting the applicant to continue the cultivation in the property. The applicant invoked S.8 of the Vesting Act to contend that the land was not covered under the MPPF Act, his assignors did not have land in excess of the ceiling limit under the Kerala Land Reforms Act and that the scheduled property was purchased by the applicant and his assignors with an intention to cultivate.

(2.) The DFO Palakkad resisted the application and contended that the scheduled lands form part of 185 hectares of private forest comprised in Sy.No. 123/1 of Koppam Village of Ottapalam Taluk. It was included as VFC item No.70 in the notification dt 10/10/1979 and since certain survey numbers were omitted an erratum notification was brought out on 8/1/2001. The entire area is known as Ramagirikotta vested forest governed by erstwhile Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, (for brevity, the MPPF Act). The respondents denied title and resisted the claim for exemption under S.3(2)&(3).

(3.) The Tribunal raised the question of limitation, the nature of the property, the exemption claimed and the eligibility to the declaration sought for. The Tribunal found the application to be filed within time since there was nothing to show the dates of publication of notification as per Rule2A(2) of the Vesting and Assignment Rules, 1974. It was found that there was nothing to show the devolution of the property and the identity of the property is not clear from the various documents produced. Specific reference was made to Ext.A6 where the janmi is referred to as Orupoovalseri Manakkal Bhavadasan Namboodiripad who is not the person from whom the four brothers, vendors of the applicants, purchased the property. The non production of document No.107 of 1965 which alone proves the owners having held the property as on 10/5/1971, was found to be fatal. It was also held that there was nothing to prove personal cultivation having been carried out in the property nor has the applicant discharged the burden of proving the land to be not governed by the MPPF Act. Except for the bland assertion that the owners of the property as on 10/5/1971 did not hold the lands beyond the ceiling limit, there was nothing to establish the said fact. The Tribunal dismissed the application against which the appeal is filed.