The court established that compliance with notification publication requirements is vital for determining the statute of limitations in actions under the Vesting Act, impacting the validity of property claims.

JUDGMENT :

Sathish Ninan, J.

These appeals arise from orders in proceedings under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Vesting Act”), and Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act , 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the EFL Act”).

2. The Original Application filed under the Vesting Act was allowed in part, in respect of a portion of the scheduled property of 263.27 acres. Challenging the respective parts of the order which are against the applicants and the State, they are in appeal in MFA Nos.75/2019 and 42/2021, respectively. Additional respondents 3 to 5 in the OA, who claimed rival title against the applicants, have preferred MFA 107/2019.

3. The Original Application under the EFL Act relate to 873 acres (approximately) including the 263 acres notified under the Vesting Act. The original application was allowed but, subject to the orders in the OA under the Vesting Act. Challenging the same the State is in appeal in MFA 31/2018.

4. The total extent of 873 acres originally belonged to one Ponmudi Holdings Ltd. The Company had obtained assignment from the Travancore Government under document No.1899 of 1116 ME. The assignment was for cultivation of cardamon, rubber, teak etc. Under Ext.A2 document dated 18.08.1972, they conveyed the property in favour of one K.T. Thomas. On 23.11.1987, K.T. Thomas entered into an agreement for sale with one Chettiyappan. Subsequently, under Exts.A10 to A46 sale deeds dated 18.10.1991, K.T.Thomas conveyed the property to Chettiyappan. In the year 1993, K.T. Thomas purported to cancel the sale deeds. There were litigations between the parties. Suffice to notice that the sale deeds in favour of Chettiyappan remain upheld.

5. In the year 1994, the legal heirs of Chettiyappan entered into an agreement for sale with the 7^th applicant in the OA. On 04.03.1980 the State had notified 263 acres from out of the 873 acres as vested forest. On 12.07.1994, original application was filed by the legal heirs of Chettiyappan, through the 7^th applicant as their power of attorney holder, challenging the notification. Pending the original application, on 29.06.1995, the 7^th applicant got conveyance of the property from applicants 1 to 6.

6. In the Original Application it was contended that the property is not a vested forest but, a plantation containing cardamon, rubber etc.

7. The State contended that the Original Application is barred by limitation. The claim that the disputed property is a plantation, was denied.

8. The legal heirs of late K.T.Thomas got themselves impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 5. They claimed that the conveyances in favour of Chettiyappan under Exts.A10 to A46 were, excluding the alleged vested forest. They claimed that title over the property notified as vested forest(the application scheduled property) vests with them. It was also contended that the property is not a vested forest.

9. The Tribunal held that a portion of the property, as identified in Exts.C1 and C2 Commissioner's Report and sketch, is not vested forest.

10. With regard to the original application under the EFL Act, the notification is in relation to the entire extent of 873 acres, including the 263 acres notified under the Vesting Act. The Original Application was before the EFL Tribunal and was tried and disposed of first. The Tribunal while holding the entire extent to be not an EFL land held that it will be subject to the proceedings under the Vesting Act regarding the extent covered by the notification under the Vesting Act.

11. We have heard Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned Speci