MADHAVI AMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants herein filed an application before the Forest Tribunal, Manjeri under S.8(1) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') contending that 37.50 acres of land described in the application is not private forest which has vested in the State under S.3(1) of the Act. They contended that the disputed land is liable to be exempted from vesting under sub-s.(2) of S.3 or at any rate under sub-s.(3) of S.3 of the Act. The claim was opposed in the counter filed on behalf of the State and the Custodian of Vested Forests.

(2.) The Forest Tribunal held that the appellants have been the owners in possession of the disputed land, that the land had not been cultivated on or before 10-5-1971 when the Act came into force, that they have proved that the disputed land together with the other lands held by them to which Chap.3 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 is applicable does not exceed the ceiling area applicable to them under S.82 of the latter Act. The Tribunal did not decide whether they have the requisite intention to cultivate the land. However, the Tribunal held that they are not holding the land under a valid registered document of title executed before 10-5-1971. On the finding that the land was not cultivated prior to 10-5-1971, applicability of sub-s.(2) of S.3 was held against. On the finding that they are not holding the land under a valid registered document of title executed before 10-5-1971, applicability of S.3(3) was held against. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the disputed land has vested in the Government and dismissed the application. Hence the appeal.

(3.) Arguments at the Bar have been confined to the applicability of sub-s.(3) of S.3 of the Act. According to this sub-section, the vesting provision in sub-s.(1) shall not apply in respect of so much extent of private forest held by an owner under a valid registered document of title executed before the appointed day and intended for cultivation by him, which together with lands held by him to which Chap.3 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 is applicable, does not exceed the extent of ceiling area applicable to him under S.82 of the said Act. Intention to cultivate has been spoken to by P.Ws.l and 2 and therefore that ingredient is satisfied. That together with the disputed land, the other lands held by the appellants do not exceed the extent of ceiling area applicable to them under S.82 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is also spoken to by PWs 1 and 2 and not rebutted on behalf of the respondents. In fact, in this regard, there is no specific denial in the counter. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is correct.