Point of Law: Personal inspection is permitted by virtue of S.12(e) of Vesting Act.

JUDGMENT :

K.Vinod Chandran, J.

Three applications under S.8 of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1979 (for brevity 'the Vesting Act') were allowed by the Tribunal, against which State has filed the appeals from the common order. The applicants are brothers and claimed title to the property through their father, Narayanan. Narayanan executed Ext.A5 in favour of the applicant in O.A.No.71 of 2009, Exts.A6 & A7 to the first applicant in O.A.No.72 of 2009 and Ext.A4 to the applicant in O.A.No.73 of 2009. The applicant in O.A.No.72 of 2009 gifted a portion of the land to his wife, the 2nd applicant. In the year 2009, the forest officials interfered with the possession of the land under the guise that it is vested under the Vesting Act. It was asserted that the land is not a private forest nor part of any area within the Malabar District and governed by the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 (for brevity 'the MPPF Act'). The properties in the three applications lie as a single unit with a total extent of 10.35 Acres, around which there are cashew plantations of the Plantation Corporation. Narayanan, along with his family, was residing in a house within the property and the land was possessed with an intention to cultivate. It was the specific contention that Narayanan converted portions of the property into paddy fields, dug a tank on the south eastern corner and constructed two residential buildings in the property. The applicants also claimed an estate of fruit-bearing trees like coconut, mango, jack fruit and tamarind. Pepper vines and other miscellaneous varieties were also cultivated and this, according to the applicants, was as on 10.05.1971, the appointed day under the Vesting Act.

2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Mannarkad resisted every claim raised by the applicants. The scheduled properties form part of a huge malavaram known as 'Paruthimala', having an extent of 400 hectares, covered under the MPPF Act, which stands vested under the Vesting Act. The notification dated 29.09.1977 was also produced. The title, possession and cultivation in the property was denied by the respondents.

3. There was a joint trial carried on, in which PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exts.A1 to A12 marked on behalf of the applicants. RW1 was examined for the respondents, who marked Exts.B1 to B5. The three reports along with plans were marked as Exts.C1 to C6. The Tribunal raised grounds of limitation, nature of the land and the entitlement to declaration of exemption either under S.3(2) or (3) of the Vesting Act. There was nothing produced to evidence a publication of notification, in accordance with the statutory rules. The Tribunal hence found the applications to be filed within the period of limitation. Considering the nature of the land, various decisions were examined and it was held that the scheduled lands lie within the MPPF area and comes within the ambit of the definition of private forests. However, examining the title deeds, it was found that the recitals clearly indicate cultivation having been carried out in 1960 after cutting the forest trees and cultivating the land with paddy. The disputed property was not claimed to be excluded under Clauses (A) to (D) of S.2(f)(1)(i) of the Vesting Act. There was also no valid claim of an intention to cultivate, especially since as on the appointed day, the father of the applicants did not hold the property on the strength of a registered deed. As for the claim under S.3(2), the definition of owner was noticed to find that, even if the land is held rightfully, the same could result in a claim for exemption and in the present case, the applicants had produced land tax receipts clearly indicating their possession. The testimony of the applicants also spoke of the possession, which was traced to their father. As far as the personal cultivation is concerned, the recitals in the title deeds were emphasized. The commission report was also noticed to find ample evidenc