2003 Supreme(SC) 1012

2003(7) Supreme 582
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kerala High Court)
Shivaraj V. Patil & D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.
State of Kerala & Ors. -Appellants
versus
K. Sarojini Amma & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 321-322 of 1998
With
Civil Appeal No. 324 of 1998
Decided on 14-10-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : John Mathew, K.R. Sasiprabhu, Ms. Malini Poduval, Advocate (NP)/Advocates.
For the Respondents : T.L.V. Iyer, P. Krishnamurthy, Senior Advocates, V.J. Francis, P.I. Jose, Jenis, V. Francis, C.N. Sree Kumar, S.U.K. Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Prasanth P., Ms. G. Indra, Advocates.

Headnote:Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963-Sections 81 and 82-Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949-Sections 3, 2(f)-Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971-Excess land-Claim of exemption of lands being private forests-Private forest converted into rubber plantation, although conversion took place after 1-4-1964-Absence of any material that private forests were converted into non-exempted category of lands-It was not permissible to Taluk Land Board to deny benefit of exemption claimed by respondents-Taluk Land Board decided the question of law erroneously in holding that benefit of exemption available to private forests could be denied on account of non-conversion of those lands into plantation before 1-1-1970-High Court was justified in interfering with the order passed by Taluk Land Board.

       Held : It is on record that the District Collector, Palakkad granted permission to transfer 1501 acres of land to Abdul Haji and Kadarshah in favour of late Shri Kumkaran Nair on 23-8-1965. In the said permission, there is reference to the MPPF Act-Survey of Forest and alteration granted in respect of 1583.95 acres and that on the application made by Abdul Haji and Kadarshah permission was granted under Section 3(1)(a) of the said Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder read with Section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and clause 4(1) of the Kerala Adoption of Laws Order, 1956 to sell various lands measuring 1583.95 acres in favour of Late Shri Kumaran Nair. The permission also indicates that separate permission was to be obtained from the Collector for felling trees. It is not disputed that the said Act applies to the private forests. Previous sanction of the District Collector was required under Section 3(1) of the said Act in case an owner of the forest i.e. private forest wished to alienate any portion of the forest. The fact that the owners of the private forest applied to the District Collector seeking permission to sell the forest land of 1501 acres in favour of Late Shri Kumaran Nair and that the District Collector granted permission accordingly under the Act as early as on 23-8-1965 is a matter of record. If the lands were not private forests, there was no question of the owners applying for previous sanction and at any rate District Collector granting permission under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act did not arise. If the lands were not private forests, the District Collector ought to have refused permission as rightly observed by the High Court. The Taluk Land Board committed a serious error both on facts and in law in holding that the respondents failed to prove that the lands in question were private forests. As per Section 81(1)(d), private forests are exempted in reckoning or determining the ceiling area of a holder of the lands. Although material was placed before the Board to show that the forest lands were converted into plantation before 1-1-1970, the Taluk Land Board rejected the plea of the respondents as to the conversion into plantations before 1-1-1970. Under Section 81(1)(d) & (e), both private forests and plantations are exempted. Assuming that the respondents failed to establish that the forest lands were not converted into plantation before 1-1-1970, yet it did not affect their claim for exemption as the lands continued to be private forests. It is not the case of the appellants that the exempted category of lands were converted into non-exempted category of lands so as to apply Section 87 of the Act. It is not the case where exemption available to private forest ceased. For the purpose of reckoning the ceiling area of the holder of the lands, the position existing as on 1-4-1964 is to be taken into consideration subject to Section 87 of the Act. (Para 12)

       `Private forest converted into rubber plantation, although the conversion took place after 1-4-1964, requires to be excluded from the accounts of the declarant because the land converted belongs to the category of lands permanently exempted from the purview of the ceiling provisions contained in KLR Act." Thus, this being the legal position, in the absence of any material that private forests were converted into non-exempted category of lands, it was not permissible to the Taluk Land Board to deny the benefit of exemption claimed by the respondents. Hence, the High Court was right in upsetting the order of the Taluk Land Board. (Paras 13 & 14)

       The Taluk Land Board decided the question of law erroneously in taking the view that the benefit of exemption available to private forests could be denied on account of non-conversion of those lands into plantation before 1-1-1970. As already discussed above, denying the benefit of exemption of the lands being private forests when they were not converted into category of non-exempted lands was a clear case of deciding the question of law erroneously. This apart, as held by this Court in dealing with the scope of the provision of Section 103 of the Act. (Para 16)