2006 Supreme(SC) 719

2006(6) Supreme 254
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kerala High Court)
S.B. Sinha and P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Kumari Varma — Appellant
versus
State of Kerala & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3371 of 2006
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 3341-42 of 2005)
With
Civil Appeal No. 3372 of 2006
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16872 of 2005)
Decided on 9-8-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Romy Chacko, Advocate.
For the Respondent : M.T. George, Advocate.

Headnote:Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 — Section 8 — Application that suit scheduled land 348 acres was cardamom plantation before appointed day i.e. 10-5-1971 and thus land was liable to be declared as not having vested in State as per Vesting Act — Forest Tribunal dismissal application on a finding that land was not put under cultivation prior to appointed day and it was forest in terms of the Act — High Court set aside the order in appeal and matter was remanded — Commission was appointed which after inspection reported that an extent of 100.05 acres was found to be planted with cardamon about 25 years prior to date of visit — Tribunal also made local inspection and came to conclusion that extent of 100.05 acres could be held to be planted with cardamom prior to appointed day and an area 9.95 acres having two constructions with platform which was said to be used for drying cardamon — Tribunal thus held 110 acres of land excluded from vesting under Vesting Act — High Court upheld the order — Appeal — Commission in his report gave reasons which led him to infer that plantation found in land were plantations effected and could not be considered sporadic — Forest Tribunal found by its own local inspection no reason to discard report of Commissioner — No justification to interfere with decision of Forest Tribunal as confirmed by High Court.

       Held : After the remand by the High Court, a commission was taken out and the commissioner clearly reported that the plantation was confined to plots A, B and C in Ex.C-3 plan. He also indicated the extent of those plots in the plan he prepared. He gave reasons which led him to infer that the plantation found in those plots were plantations effected and could not be considered sporadic growth as sought to be contended by the forest authorities. He also reported that the rest of the area was full of forest tree growth. In spite of opportunity available, the claimant did not examine the commissioner to demonstrate that the report about the actual extent in which old plantation was found, was not correct. There was therefore no justifiable reason for the Forest Tribunal and the High Court to discard the plan and the report. Though a decision cannot be based on a local inspection, the Forest Tribunal did make a local inspection so as to appreciate the evidence better and the Forest Tribunal found no reason to discard the report of the commissioner or the identification of the plots made by him. Except the minutes relied on, and some bills for purchase of seedlings, the applicant could not adduce any evidence to show that more area was actually cultivated or that the identification made by the commissioner of the plots which contained cardamom plants aged 20 to 25 years, was in any manner, not correct or that the identification was unacceptable. It was in this situation that the Forest Tribunal came to the conclusion that the extent of 100.05 acres was liable to be exempted as cardamom plantation prior to the appointed day and that an extent of 9.95 acres was also to be excluded or exempted on the basis that it was required for purposes ancillary to the plantation. Of course, as rightly contended by counsel appearing on behalf of the State, there was no specific claim for exemption on the ground of land needed for purposes ancillary to the purpose of the plantation, but taking note of the existence of the buildings therein and the platform referred to, in the report of the commissioner, the tribunal thought it appropriate to exclude an extent of 9.95 acres also on that ground, even though there was no specific claim in that regard. But then, the claim of the applicant was that the entire 348 acres of land was to be excluded. It was in that situation that the High Court also chose not to interfere with that part of the order of the tribunal. Thus, on the whole, we are not satisfied that there is any justification in interfering with the decision of the Forest Tribunal, as confirmed by the High Court.(Paras 6 and 7)