M J THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the common order of the Forests Tribunal, Palghat in O.A. Nos. 45, 46, 47, 48 and 50 of 1990 dated 31st March, 1990. The above applications were filed by the appellants herein under S.8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, (Act 26 of 1971). This case has a chequered history. It is unfortunate that the dispute before the Tribunal, which started in the year 1975, has not seen an end even now. The matter was remitted by a Division Bench of this Court to the Tribunal on 27th August, 1979 to consider what were the lands obtained under Exts. P - 1 and P - 4. In determining the extent of land that would vest the Tribunal was directed to determine the total extent of land taking into account the claim in respect of Panduranga estate also. Therefore, the Tribunal was directed first to determine whether Ext. P - 4 is a valid document of title or not and then to determine the total extent of land held by each one of the claimants. It is then that the Tribunal could determine whether there is any excess land over the ceiling limit held by the claimant. This Court, while remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal, held that the lands obtained under Ext. P - 1 would fall under S.3(3) of the Act, subject, of course, to the ceiling limit. It has to be noted that the applications filed by the appellants were disposed of by the Tribunal by its order dated 3-3-1976. This Court, by its order in M.F.A. No. 239 of 1977 dated 27th August, 1979, remitted back the matter for fresh disposal. Unfortunately, the Tribunal, by its order dated 5th April, 1980, dismissed the applications without properly understanding the scope of the remand order. On remand, the Tribunal held that Ext. P - 4 is an invalid document for want of sanction from the District Collector for alienation under S.3(4) of the Act. The Tribunal proceeded to hold that the claimants are not entitled to exemption under S.3(3) of the Act and that the land covered by Ext. P - 4 is vested in the Government. Regarding the benefit of exemption under S.3(3) of the Act in regard to the land covered by Ext. P - 1 the Tribunal held that in the absence of Tahsildar's Certificate regarding the total extent of land in the possession of the various claimants, the benefit could not be granted. Consequently, all the Original Petitions filed by the appellants herein who claimed title to the land were dismissed. The claimants filed M.F.A. No. 275 of 1980 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 13th January, 1986 again remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law and after giving both sides reasonable opportunity to adduce further evidence. This Court, in its remittal order dated 13th January, 1986, has observed as follows :

(2.) The present appeal is filed by the appellants, as already stated, against a common under passed in five applications filed before the Forest Tribunal, Palghat. Each one of the appellants in the five applications claimed that portions of Laurels Estate and Panduranga Estate held by the appellants did not vest in the State under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The Laurels Estate was acquired by one John Jacob and another under Ext. P. 1 sale deed of the year 1955 and the Panduranga estate was purchased by the said John Jacob and another under Ext. P.4. The right of John Jacob was obtained separately under Exts. P2 and P5. It is said that this right was orally partitioned between several persons and it is on the basis of such oral partition that the claims were made before the Forest Tribunal for different extends of land in two different estates. The appellants, in support of their applications, have furnished the following as a reason for filing the applications.

(3.) The respondent State filed a counter affidavit stating that there was no cultivation in the petition Scheduled property on or before 10-5-1971 and hence the area vested in the State, that the appellants do not claim it as developed prior to the appointed date and therefore, they are not entitled to the area on any of the grounds on which it is claimed and that they are not entitled to any exemption or exclusion under the Act.