STATE OF KERALA Vs. SARASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the order passed by the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode on 2.8.2010 in O.A.No.4 of 2005, an application filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein under section 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Vesting Act" for short) for a declaration that the petition schedule property is not a private forest vested in the Government. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) Respondents 1 to 4 herein as petitioners instituted O.A.No.4 of 2005 for a declaration that the petition schedule property, having a total area of 4 acres, situate in Sy.No.740/1 of Pudussery Central Village, Palakkad Taluk, Palakkad District, comprised of 50 cents purchased by the first applicant as per Ext.A1 sale deed dated 9.1.1987; 1 acre 50 cents purchased by the third applicant as per Ext.A2 sale deed dated 9.1.1987 and 2 acres purchased by Gopalan, the predecessor-in-interest of the applicants as per Ext.A3 sale deed dated 13.10.1986 is not a private forest vested in the Government. As per the averments in the application, the petition schedule property originally belonged in jenm to the family of respondents 3 and 4. The applicants had in the application stated that as per Ext.A4 partition deed dated 31.3.1969 registered as document No.1548 of 1969 of SRO, Palakkad, executed among the family members of respondents 3 and 4, the petition schedule property was set apart to the share of the third respondent. Later as per Ext.A5 exchange deed dated 26.3.1971, the property was transferred to the fourth respondent from whom the various applicants and their predecessor-in- interest purchased it as per Exts.A1, A2 and A3 sale deeds. The applicants contended that ever since the date of purchase they are in possession of the petition schedule property, that recently on 20.1.2005 and 21.1.2005, officials of the Forest Department caused obstruction to the possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property and therefore, they are put to the necessity of filing an application under section 8 of the Vesting Act. The applicants had in the application further stated that the petition schedule property is not a private forest as defined in the Vesting Act but only dry land and that it is not part of an area to which the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.P.P.F. Act" for short) applied. They had further averred that the land lies interspersed among households and paddy lands and that it was devoid of any tree growth as on 10.5.1971 or immediately prior to it. It was further contended that there are 65 coconut palms and 35 mango trees in a portion of the land and that a portion was also used for the purpose of paddy cultivation.

(3.) Upon receipt of notice, respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit dated 31.10.2005 wherein they contended that there is confusion regarding the existence and identity of the three items of properties mentioned in the schedule to the application. Respondents 1 and 2 further contended that on ground, the boundaries of the disputed property are as shown below: