DEVADATHAN Vs. CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are the supplementary respondents in IA 247/87 in OA 170/77, before the Forest Tribunal, Palghat. They challenge the order passed by the Tribunal by which the application for review filed by the Custodian of Vested Forests and Conservator of Forests and State of Kerala under S.8B of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act (hereinafter referred to as Act 26/71) was allowed. The order dt. 22.12.1978 passed in OA 170/77 was set aside. As a result, the OA was dismissed. The original applicant, who was respondent No.1 in IA 247/87 eventhough was impleaded as 3rd respondent in this appeal, his name was deleted by the appellants by obtaining an order in CMP No. 3813/97.

(2.) Original application was filed by one T.K. Kunhunni Nair under S.8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act seeking a declaration to the effect that the petition schedule property comprised 11 acres and 65 cents was not private forest as per the provisions of Act 26/71. In the alternative, it was contended that the applicant was entitled to exemption under S.3(2) of Act 26/71 on the ground that the applicant was owner of the petition schedule property and was in personal cultivation of the same and that he was not having land in excess of the ceiling limit applicable to him under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. Forest Tribunal, by its order dt. 22.12.1978, held that the applicant was entitled to exemption granted under S.3(2) of Act 26/71. The above order was sought to be reviewed by the Custodian of Vested Forests and Conservator of Forests and State of Kerala, by filing IA 247/87 under S.8B of Act 26/71.

(3.) On a consideration of the above application, Tribunal took the view that the disputed property was part of private forest governed by MPPF Act on the appointed day, that the applicant had no title to the property as he had not proved lease set up by him, that he had not proved the title of the lessor in the disputed property and that even if the lease is proved, it was invalid in view of the provisions contained under S.3 of the MPPF Act for want of permission from the District Collector. Tribunal also found that the applicant had failed to prove the other two requirements necessary for exemption under S.3(2), namely that he had been cultivating the property on the appointed day and that he was not having land in excess of the ceiling area provided under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The appellants who got impleaded as supplementary respondents in IA. 247/87 contended that they had acquired the property under two sale deeds dt. 10.2.1981 from one Neelakandan Namboodiri who, in turn, had acquired the property from Kunhunni Nair, the original applicant, under assignment deed dt. 6.7.1979.