1. Dispute regarding whether land vested in the government as a private forest under the KPF Act or is exempt due to personal cultivation and ownership. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 52
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Abdul Nazeer, Deepak Gupta, JJ.
State of Kerala & Another - Appellants
Vs.
Mohammed Basheer - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 10075-10076 of 2014
Decided On : 22-01-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
When the enactment enjoins that any evidence would be treated as a conclusive proof of certain factual situation or legal hypothesis, the law would forbid other evidence to be adduced for the purpose of contradicting or varying the aforesaid conclusiveness.
When a land is assigned to a person under Land Reforms Act giving him right, title, interest and possession of the land, it will be exempted from vesting in the State under KPF act.
When the enactment enjoins that any evidence would be treated as a conclusive proof of certain factual situation or legal hypothesis, the law would forbid other evidence to be adduced for the purpose of contradicting or varying the aforesaid conclusiveness.
When a land is assigned to a person under Land Reforms Act giving him right, title, interest and possession of the land, it will be exempted from vesting in the State under KPF act.
Subject
Land Law - Land Ownership and Title
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 4 – An enactment specifying any evidence to be conclusive proof of certain factual situation – Any other evidence would be forbidden to be adduced. (Para 18)
(2000) 2 SCC 417 – Relied upon
(b) Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 – Section 3 r/w section 72K, Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 – Exemption from vesting – Land Tribunal issuing certificate of purchase to respondent – Conclusive proof of assignment of tenancy right, title and interest to respondent as also his possession – Held, land in question exempted from vesting in State under 3(2), Forest Act. (Para 21)
(2003) 3 SCC 221 – Referred
Facts of the case:
The Forest Tribunal dismissed the petition filed by respondent for declaration that the scheduled land is not a private forest. The respondent challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal. The review petition filed by the appellant-State was dismissed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Appeals are devoid of merit.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the State : Mr. C.K. Sasi
For the Respondent: Mr. K. Rajeev
Advocate Appeared:
For the State : Mr. C.K. Sasi
For the Respondent: Mr. K. Rajeev
Table of Contents
2. State contends land vested as private forest and certificate of purchase is non-binding; respondent claims exemption under KPF Act based on ownership and personal cultivation. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 )
3. The certificate of purchase under the Land Reforms Act provides statutory conclusiveness regarding title and possession, establishing the respondent as an owner under personal cultivation. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
4. A certificate of purchase issued under Section 72K of the Land Reforms Act is conclusive proof of title and possession, qualifying land for exemption under the KPF Act. (Para 14 , 19 , 21 )
5. Appeals dismissed. (Para 23 )
6. What is the legal effect of a certificate of purchase issued under Section 72K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act?
A certificate of purchase issued under Section 72K(1) is conclusive proof of the assignment of the right, title, and interest of the landowner and intermediaries to the cultivating tenant. (Para 14 , 19 , 21 )
7. Under what conditions is land exempt from vesting as a private forest under Section 3(2) of the KPF Act?
Land is exempt from vesting if it is held by an owner under personal cultivation and the extent of the land does not exceed the ceiling limit applicable under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. (Para 8 , 9 , 17 )
8. Does a certificate of purchase serve as proof of possession of the land?
Yes, a certificate issued by a competent Land Tribunal after an inquiry finding the tenant was in possession as a cultivating tenant constitutes conclusive proof of possession. (Para 19 , 21 )
JUDGMENT :
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
The appellant-State of Kerala has preferred these appeals challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala in M.F.A. No.160 of 1991 dated 18.09.2001 and the order in RP No.572 of 2001 in M.F.A. No.160 of 1991 dated 06.02.2007.
2. The respondent herein filed a petition in the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad under Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (for short 'the KPF Act') for settlement of the dispute in relation to land measuring about 2 acres bearing R.S No. 1200, Muppenad (now in Vellar mala village) Vythiri Taluk, Wynad district (for short 'the land'). In the petition, it was contendedthat one K.C. Kunji Moosa had orally leased the land in favour of the respondent's father in the year 1962 and that his father was personally cultivating the land; after the death of his father, he was personally cultivating the land. It is not a private forest as defined under Section 2(f) of the KPF Act; the land was principally planted with coffee long before the appointed day; thus, it had not vested in the government under Section 3 of the KPF Act; he was issued a certificate of purchase under Section 72K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short 'the Land Reforms Act') by the Land Tribunal in respect of the said land. It was further contended that on 25.02.1987, the officials of Social Forestry Department entered the land and destroyed the coffee plants. In this connection, he had complained to the local police and the Village Officer, and that till 25.02.1987, there was no obstruction for cultivating the land from the forest officials.
3. The appellants filed a counter-affidavit disputing the claim of the respondent. It was contended that the land has not been cultivated and that the certificate of purchase produced by the respondent is not binding on them. The respondent was not in possession of the land as on the date of vesting or subsequent to that date. The land was vested in the government on 10.05.1971 and is under the custody of the Forest Department since then. Since there is no evidence to show the respondent's title or possession over the land on the appointed day, his claim under Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the KPF Act is not sustainable.
4. The Tribunal, by its order dated 30.06.1990, dismissed the petition. The respondent challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the High Court. The High Court, by its order dated 18.09.2001, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal. The review petition filed by the appellant-State was dismissed by the High Court on 06.02.2007.
5. Appearing for the appellant-State, Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel, submits that the local inspection report shows that no cultivation whatsoever was seen in the land. The Tribunal found that the land was a private forest at the time of coming into force of the KPF Act. The only document produced by the respondent was the certificate of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal to prove his title to the property. The certificate of purchase is not conclusive as regards the title and possession. Forest Department was not a party to the said proceedings and hence, it is not bound by the said certificate. The other documents produced by the respondent, such as revenue receipts do not prove title of the respondent over the land. It is argued that the respondent has failed to establish his possession with valid title to the land as on 10.05.1974 or thereafter. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of the Tribunal.
6. Shri K. Rajeev, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the father of the respondent had taken the property in the year 1962. In the year 1968 the land was planted with coffee. The respondent got possession of the property from his father. Since then, the respondent has been in possession of the land. The Land Tribunal took suo motu proceedings under Rule 5 of the Ker
