MOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant filed an application before the Forest tribunal for a declaration that an extent of 102. 78 acres of land is not a vested forest within the purview of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and assignment) Act, 1971 (for short'the Act' ). THE application was dismissed by the Forest Tribunal, except in regard to an extent of 2 acres which was found to be not a private forest. Hence this appeal.

(2.) THE material averments in the application are as follows: He purchased the land described therein as per Ext. Al assignment deed dated 16-1-1972 and the said land is part of an extensive area planted with rubber for which a licence was issued by the Rubber Board in 1961 in favour of the predecessors-in-title of the appellant. THE whole area was enjoyed as a full grown rubber estate by name "mahe Malappuram Estate", until it was ravaged by successive out-breaks of wild fire during the period immediately prior to Ext. Al assignment. THE appellant applied to the Rubber Board and obtained a licence for replanting rubber in this area and on the strength of the said licence planting operations were again made in the land. But due to continued labour unrest in the Estate it was not possible for the appellant to maintain the rubber plantation efficiently. Due to the lack of attention and maintenance of the rubber plants for a long period, wild growths or shrubs spread over the area and consequently major part of the rubber plantation became extinct. However a few rubber trees remain even now in the property, though in a scattered manner. When the labour disputes were settled the appellant made arrangements to replant the whole area with rubber. But at this juncture the Forest Officials obstructed the appellant from carrying on the said work on the plea that the area forms part of vested forest. As his requests to the Forest Officials to desist from obstructing him did not yield favourable results, he filed the application under S. 8 of the Act for the declaration as aforesaid.

(3.) THE recitals in Ext. Al assignment deed show that as per the licence dated 21-3-1961 granted by the Rubber Board rubber had been planted in an area or of 300 acres including the disputed land, that rubber trees were destroyed by fire which broke out before and after 1966, that no proper maintenance could be done for the upkeep of the estate and that rubber trees are standing only here and there in the property at the time of the assignment. Though the said document was executed only a few months after 10-5-1971 the Forest Tribunal held that the recitals therein about the condition of the rubber plantation can be accepted as true. Hence it was found by the Forest Tribunal that the property had been planted with rubber in 1961 and that several rubber trees were destroyed by fire before and after 1966. THE tribunal took note of the fact that even R. W. I, the only witness examined on behalf of the respondents had not denied the above facts, but on the other hand r. W. 1 admitted that he had heard about the planting of rubber in this area and about their destruction by fire. Ext. A13 is an application for registration of a rubber estate filed by the appellant before the Rubber Board on 5-3-1973 for planting rubber in an area of 31. 57 hectares. THE Rubber Board made an endorsement in Ext. A13 treating the application as registered in the office of the Rubber Board on 25-5-1973. THE Forest Tribunal also noted from Ext. A13 that the appellant had planted rubber in the said portion soon after the assignment in 1972. But the Forest Tribunal found it difficult to accede to the appellant's claim because there were only "very few rubber trees in the property on 10-5-1971" and as such the Tribunal could not hold that the land was used principally for the cultivation of rubber as on 10-5-1971.