Applicants must demonstrate interest and cultivation as of the appointed day to seek remedies under the Vesting Act.

JUDGMENT

Vinod Chandran, J.

We have here, a very peculiar case of the applicants, who sold the properties scheduled in the two applications, approaching the Forest Tribunal under S.8 of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (for brevity, 'the Vesting Act'), merely for the reason that they were persons holding the property as on 10.05.1971, the appointed day under the Vesting Act. In fact their assignees had first approached the Civil Court with a suit, which was rejected for reason of the bar of jurisdiction under S.13 of the Vesting Act.

2. The assignees, one who claimed 1.50 Acres and the other who claimed 75 cents, then approached the Forest Tribunal with O.A.No.54 of 1999 under the Vesting Act. The applicants were brothers and the first applicant, who claimed 1.50 Acres, died during the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal. Supplementary applicants 3 to 7, legal representatives of the 1st applicant, were impleaded. The Tribunal rejected the claim for reason of the applicants not holding the properties as on 10.05.1971, there being no cultivation in the property nor a registered deed validating such possession, as on 10.05.1971, the last of which alone would require a consideration of the intention to cultivate. The purchase certificates produced by the applicants, which were in fact issued to their assignors; who are the applicants herein, were found to be not conclusive proof of a cultivation carried on in the property. The order of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court in M.F.A (F) No.48/2004, which also stood rejected on grounds of absence of locus standi and there being no cultivation.

3. Since the applicants in the earlier proceedings, who were holding the lands at that point of time as per a valid conveyance, were found to be not competent to initiate proceedings under S.8, holders of the purchase certificate filed the present application. The Tribunal found that there is no locus standi on the applicants, since they had admittedly sold the properties. It was found by the Tribunal that earlier in the case filed by the assignees, the findings of the Tribunal which rejected the application were affirmed by this Court in appeal, and it was also found that there was no cultivation in the property. The decision in Mohammed Basheer v. State of Kerala [M.F.A.

(F).No.160/1991] was found to be not applicable.

4. We heard Sri.Firoz, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) for the respondents. Sri.Firoz argued that a Full Bench of this Court in Parameswara Sastrigal v. State of Kerala ( 2008 (2) KLT 461 ) found that even a subsequent assignee, after the appointed day under the Vesting Act, could invoke the remedy under S.8 and there need be only proof of cultivation as on the appointed day. It is also argued that the decision of the High Court in Mohammed Basheer [supra] referred to in the impugned order has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Mohammed Basheer [ (2019) 4 SCC 260 ]. Learned Special Government Pleader however would point out that the earlier order having not been challenged or even a review sought after Parameswara Sastrigal [supra], the matter has attained finality. It was submitted that there was no question of the applicants being entitled to a declaration, since they have no subsisting rights in the property.

5. True, in Mohammed Basheer [supra] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if a purchase certificate is issued, then there is conclusive proof of title and there is also an entitlement of exemption under the Vesting Act. However, it is clear that the present applicants have no interest over the property as of now and they cannot seek a declaration from the Tribunal, to exempt the lands. The observation made in M.F.A.(F).No.48 of 2004 that only the original person, who is entitled to hold the property prior to 10.05.1971, is entitled to apply for exemption under S.3 of the Act, c