MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the claimant arises out of a proceeding under S.8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (for short the Act). The petition was filed before the Forest Tribunal for a declaration that 8 acres of land (3 hectares 24 ares) in Survey No. 1742 of Sholayar Village has not vested in the Government as a private forest under the Act. The appellant claimant alleged in the application that, he obtained the property from Mannarghat Moopil Sthanam under an oral lease of 1961, the rent being Re- 1 per acre. He planted cardamom in 5 acres and got registration under the Cardamom Act. He was doing fugitive cultivation in the balance 3 acres and the entire property was being cultivated by him before 10th May 1971. He further alleged that he had made preparations for the construction of a house in the property, that he is having land only below the ceiling area under the Land Reforms Act and that the above land will not come with in the M. P. P. F. Act and it is not a private forest. But on 25th July 1979 the forest officials came and obstructed the claimant from carrying on agricultural operations and hence he filed the present application under S.8 of the Act for a declaration that the land has not vested in the Government.

(2.) THE State and the Custodian of Vested Forests opposed the application contending that the property is part of Varadi Mala coming under the M.P.P.F. Act, that it has vested in the Government and that the claimant has no title or possession over the same. They further contended that no cultivation was raised in the land prior to 10th May 1971, that it is bounded on four sides with vested forests and contains forest trees like vatta, thani etc. aged 30 years. On these allegations they prayed for a dismissal of the application.

(3.) THE Forest Tribunal under the present order found that there is no valid lease in favour of the claimant and that he has no title over the property. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that there is no satisfactory evidence to prove that the land in question was cultivated before 10th May 1971 and consequently held that the land has vested in the State under the Act. The appeal is by the claimant against the above order.