STATE OF KERALA Vs. PURUSHOTHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these appeals are filed on the very same ground and a common question of law, emerges for consideration in both appeals, there appeals are heard together and disposed of accordingly, by this common judgment.

(2.) The appellants are the respondents in O.A. No.20 of 2010 on the files of the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode. The aforesaid O.A. was filed by the respondents herein under Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, (for short 'the Vesting Act'), seeking a declaration that the petition schedule property is not a private forest and that the respondent is entitled to get the exemption under Section 3(2) or 3(3) of the Vesting Act. The parties are referred to as in the original application.

(3.) According to the averments in the application, the application schedule property, having an extent of 05 acres situated in Sy.No.19 of Thondarnad Village, Mananthavady Taluk, Wayanad District belonged to him and he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said land. It is further alleged that originally the application schedule property belonged to one Puraloth Kunhi Mammed Haji, who orally transferred the property to the applicant before 1963 and from 1963 onwards the land was in his possession and he was doing cultivation in the property. Later on, an unregistered marupattam deed was also executed by the said Kunhi Mammed Haji, in his favour on 30th August, 1963. The application schedule property is not a forest land, as contemplated under the Vesting Act, as on the appointed day and the property was in his personal cultivation and continued to be so, till the date of filing the application. According to him, the entire property is now fully covered with plantations like coconut tree, arecanut, coffee, pepper vines, medical crops etc. The property does not have characteristics of forest and the M.P.P.F. Act is not applicable to the land. It was possessed and cultivated by the applicant and his predecessor for cultivation and they have actually cultivated the same from the period before 1963. But, recently, the respondent Forest officials made an attempt to obstruct the peaceful possession of the property just prior to the filing of the application. It is also averred that there had been no valid and proper notification. With the above averments, the applicant sought for a declaration, as referred above.