JOHN KURIAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of one Annamma Kurian. The petitioners claim that along with nine others they purchased a total extent of 334 acres of unsurveyed land in Ernad Taluk that belonged to Ayiramnazhi Kovilakam. The said 334 acres were private forests and vested in the Government under S.3 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, hereinafter called the 'Vesting Act'. That the lands were forests that vested in the State, is clear from the allegations in the original petition and especially from the allegations in Para.30 thereof. This is also clear from the fact that Annamma Kurian and petitioner No. 2 approached the Forest Tribunal under S.8 of the Vesting Act and the said applications were dismissed. The appeals filed by Annamma Kurian and Petitioner No. 2 before this court under S.8 A of the Vesting Act was also dismissed by this court by judgment dated 24-7-1984. These facts are pleaded in Para.31 of the Original Petition. It is therefore clear that the subject matter of this Original Petition are lands which are vested in the State under S.3 of the Vesting Act.

(2.) The petitioners have approached this court praying for the issue of writ of mandamus directing respondent No.4 to submit a report to respondent No. 3 in compliance with the alleged direction issued by respondent No. 3. There is also a prayer for a direction to respondent No. 3 to restore possession of an extent of properties to petitioner No. 1 (presumably since Annamma Kurian is dead) and another extent to petitioner No. 2, on the basis of a survey plan, which has been submitted by a Surveyor attached to the office of the 4th respondent and for issue of a further direction to the 3rd respondent to initiate action against the 4th respondent for not complying with the directions of the 3rd respondent. In effect, what the petitioners seek is a direction to be issued to the Conservator of Forests and Custodian of Vested Forests to restore to them an extent of 50 acres of Private forests that have vested in the State under S.3 of the Vesting Act. It is seen that the petitioners have made representations to the Minister for Forests in an attempt to get relief and their complaint appears to be that action is not being taken in the light of their representations before the Minister. It had also to be noted that the petitioners have no case that the lands were not surveyed as Private forests under the Vesting Act or that they have applied in time and at the time of survey under the Kerala Private Forests (Exemption from Vesting) Rules, 1974 even assuming that the said Rule can have any application to a case like the present.

(3.) The petitioners mainly relied on Ext. P1 executive order stated to have been issued by the Government enabling production of what is called corroborative evidence like tax receipts, patta chits, panchayat registration, records showing purchase of land from jenmi or any other documentary evidence to be accepted as sufficient proof to establish that land is in the occupation of a person from a date prior to 01/01/1977. In my view, Ext. P1 Government Order cannot affect a forest which has vested in the Government under S.3 of the Vesting Act. It cannot certainly apply to a case where a claim has been made under S.8 of the Vesting Act and the said claim has been rejected by the Forest Tribunal constituted under that Act. In this case, admittedly Annamma Kurian and petitioner No. 2 had approached the Forest Tribunal and their applications had been rejected. They had also filed appeals before this court as M.F.A. Nos. 316/84 and 319/94 which had been dismissed by this court by judgment dated 24-7-1984. The order Ext. P1 in my view cannot prevail over the orders of the Forest Tribunal in the present case. Moreover, Ext. P1 only says that certain documents can be considered as evidence of occupation. Any occupation so called, of a private forest that has vested is of no avail to bring about a divesting of .the forest lands.