STATE OF KERALA Vs. AMMALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was the applicant in O.A. No. 220 of 1978 before the Forest Tribunal, Palghat. She claimed that 1.14 acres of land in Sy. No. 225/3 of Tholannur Village, Alathur Taluk, Palghat District, was agricultural land and therefore sought a declaration that the application schedule properties were prarambas which fell outside the purview of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 26 of 1971. She sought to sustain her claim on the basis of Ext. A1 document, whereby one Kesavan, who was alleged to have obtained tenancy right in respect of that land along with some other lands, had assigned the land to her.

(2.) The applicant also examined herself as PW 1. The Tribunal found that the land was not agricultural land, since it was not cultivated that far. The claim for exemption under S.3(2) of Act 26 of 1971 was, therefore, turned down. However, it was found that the applicant was entitled to exemption of the land under S.3(3) of that enactment. The appellants challenge the judgment of Tribunal thus granting exemption in favour of the applicant.

(3.) The Government Pleader, appearing for the appellants submits that it was essential that an applicant for exemption under S.3(3) of Act 26 of 1971 should prove before the Tribunal that he/she was holding the land under a valid registered document of title and it was so held with the intention to cultivate. Emphasis was laid on the fact that the Tribunal did find, as a matter of fact, that the land was within the provisions of the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act. S.3(1) of that enactment made it obligatory that transfer of the forest land should be effected only with the prior permission of the District Collector. Clause (b) of that provision is to the effect, that any transfer effected without the sanction of the Collector will be invalid. It was, therefore, necessary that there should have been permission obtained by the transferor to transfer the land concerned under Ext. Al document. No material indicating that such permission from the Collector, Palghat was sought or obtained prior to the execution of Ext. Al document was produced before the Tribunal. There was not even an averment of that nature in the pleadings or evidence of PW-1. It was, therefore, obvious that the requirement of S.3(3) of the Act, viz., a valid registered document of title was not satisfied by Ext. A1. The exemption granted in favour of the applicant was, therefore, unsustainable.