AHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals filed under S.8A of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act 1971 arise from the common order of the Forest Tribunal, Manjeri dated 30-7-1983 disposing of six connected applications under S.8 of the Act. These Original Applications were O.A. Nos. 66 of 1981, 67 of 1981, 68 of 1981, 70 of 1981, 97 of 1981 and 101 of 1981. The Tribunal dismissed O.A. Nos. 68, 97 and 101 of 1981. The aggrieved persons have filed M.F.A. Nos. 572, 496 and 568 of 1983 against the order of dismissal. O.A. Nos. 66, 67 and 70 of 1981 were allowed. The Stale has therefore filed M.F.A. Nos. 650, 651 and 655 of 1983 challenging the order in those petitions. These appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment.

(2.) The Original Applications had been filed before the Forest Tribunal under S.8 of the Act claiming exemption from vesting in respect of certain area of land in 'Mazha Kodi Tharisu'. The extents stated in O.A. Nos. 66, 67, 68, 70,97 and 101 are respectively 11.40 acres, 8.35 acres, 4.90 acres, 4.65 acres, 6.35 acres and 6.70 acres.

(3.) We shall first consider the appeals filed by the State as M.F.A.Nos.650, 651 and 655 of 1983 arising from O.A.Nos.67, 70 and 66 of 1981 respectively. The petitioners claimed that the land had been taken on lease from Nilambur Kovilakom in 1946. The petitioners and their predecessors have cultivated the land with paddy and other crops and are in enjoyment of the same and no portion of the respective area is forest and could not therefore vest under the Act. The petitioners also claimed that they have obtained purchase certificates in respect of areas on application made before the Land Tribunal with the Forest authorities on the party array. The custodian of private forest the respondent contested the claim on the ground that the disputed items are portions of a compact area of 10002.12 hectares of private forest in Sy. No. 1305 of Chungathara village governed by the M.P.P.F. Act, the area does not contain any cultivation, there are forest trees of spontaneous growth of more than 40 years old and that the petitioners are therefore not entitled to the exemption claimed. The decision of the Land Tribunal was also attacked as invalid while denying the oral entrustment.