Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4349
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
M.O.KUCHUKUNJU – Respondent
MFA (FOREST) 97/2014
SRI. NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SPECIAL G.P (FOREST), SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL, SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SPL. G.P. FOR FOREST
Agricultural lands with valid ownership documents are exempt from vesting under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act.
Headnote:
Vesting - Land Tenancy - Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (Sections 2(f), 3(2), 3(3)) and Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 - The scheduled property is exempt from the definition of private forest under the Vesting Act, given its agricultural use and the lack of characteristics typical of a forest.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant claimed ownership and cultivation rights over 2.12 acres of land, asserting that it was agricultural land and not governed by forest laws, which the respondents disputed, raising issues of entitlement and limitation.
Issues: Whether the land qualifies as private forest under the Vesting Act and the applicability of the MPPF Act and whether the applicant's entitlement is barred by the statute of limitations.
Ratio Decidendi: The land lacks forest characteristics, rendering it exempt from the Vesting Act, supported by a valid purchase certificate confirming agricultural intent and use.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision in favor of the applicant.
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J The applicant is concerned with 2.12 acres in Re.Sy 253/3 Pt.
(Sy.No174/3, 12Pt) in Kallamala Village, Mannarkad Taluk, Palakkad District. It was contended that the properties originally belonged in Jenmam to Mannarkad Moopil Sthanam under whom the applicant obtained verumpattom tenancy right in the year 1962. A purchase certificate was also issued from the Land Tribunal, Agali in the year 1981. The applicant, from the time of his tenancy right was cultivating the lands with coconut, arecanut, cashew, jackfruit and other types of vegetation. The house of the applicant is also situated in the OA property, which was earlier a thatched one, damaged in course of time. There is now a pucca residential construction carried out in the property. The applicant claimed that the OA scheduled properties does not contain any natural growth and is a garden land which is not governed by the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 (for brevity 'the MPPF Act').
2. The respondents alleged that the scheduled property was included as VFC item No.105 in the notification dated 29.07.1977. The title , possession and cultivation claimed by the applicant was disputed and even the purchase certificate was challenged. The respondents further raised grounds of limitation and asserted that there can be no ground, of exclusion or exemption from the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (for brevity 'the Vesting Act'), validly raised by the applicant.
3. We heard Sri Nagaraj Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) and Sri. K.P Balagopal, learned Counsel for the applicant.
4. The Tribunal raised three issues; of limitation, the nature of the property and the declaration on exemption under S.3(2) or(3) of the Vesting Act. Limitation was found in favour of the applicant and there is no ground to upset the same. The Tribunal categorically found that there was no evidence adduced to prove the publication of the notification as per the statutory rules. The application was clearly maintainable.
5. The applicant had specifically contended that the scheduled property does not come within the purview of the MPPF Act, which is not disputed by the respondents. Ext.B1 is the notification produced by the respondents wherein the application scheduled property is included as VFC item No.105. The total extent of Pakulam- Kandiyoor Malayoram as seen from Ext.B1 was 4.75 hectares. The MPPF Act makes itself applicable only to private forests having a total contiguous area of more than 100 acres. The Tribunal rightly found that the scheduled land does not come within the purview of the MPPF Act.
6. The Tribunal then examined the question whether it comes within the definition of private forest within the ambit of S.2(f)(1)(ii) of the Vesting Act. It was found that the scheduled property does not exist with the characteristics of a forest. To arrive at the said finding, the Tribunal examined Exts.A1, A2, A9 & A10 produced by the applicant and the plan and report prepared the Commissioner marked as Ext.C1 and C1(a) . Ext.A1 was the order of the Land Tribunal in suo motu proceedings S.M. No.94/80 based on which Ext.A2 purchase certificate under the Kerala Land Reforms Act was issued; in which the extent shown is 3 acres. Exts.A9 and A10 refer to the ceiling proceedings initiated against the intermediary, in which the applicant had filed an application to exclude the scheduled land held by him, with fixity of tenure, from the ceiling proceedings; which stood allowed. The title of the property was found, based on Ext.A2 purchase certificate, based on Ext.A1. S.72K of the clearly makes the purchase certificate issued, conclusive proof of the ownership of the property covered by such certificate.
7. As per the Commission report there were 85 mango trees, 20 cashew trees, 200 arecanut trees, 80 coconut trees and 3 jack fruit trees in the scheduled property. The age of the coconut trees were stated to be 40-45 years,
