SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46781

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
GOPALAN – Respondent
MFA (FOREST)/81/2015



Advocates:
SRI. NAGRAJ NARAYAN, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.TOM K.THOMAS, SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY, SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE

The classification of private forests is determined by historical legal applicability rather than current land characteristics, as per the definitions in relevant statutory provisions.

Headnote:

Exclusion - Private Forest - Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 - Section 2(f)(1)(i) - The court clarified that the definition of 'private forest' includes lands that are not necessarily forests, emphasizing the applicability of the M.P.P.F. Act and the requirement for proper examination of land classification.

Fact of the Case:

The applicants claimed exemption from classification as private forests under Section 2(f)(1)(i) of the Private Forest Act, prompting a legal examination of land characteristics and historical classifications regarding the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949.

Finding of the Court:

The Tribunal's decision that a property must exhibit forest characteristics to be categorised as a private forest was deemed erroneous. The court emphasized the definition within the Act of 1971, asserting relevance of applicable laws rather than solely land characteristics.

Issues: Whether lands claimed for exemption under the Private Forest Act should be classified based on their characteristics or based on their historical classification under the M.P.P.F. Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the definition of 'private forest' encompasses lands regardless of forest characteristics as long as they fall within the jurisdiction of the M.P.P.F. Act.

Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration in light of the established legal principles.

J U D G M E N T

K. Vinod Chandran,J The appeals are filed from a common order of the Forest Tribunal.

The respondents who were the applicants before the Forest Tribunal claimed exclusion under S.2 (f)(1)(i) of the Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 ( hereinafter, 'the Act of 1971'). Having looked at State of Kerala v. K.C.Moosahaji 1984 KLT 494 and K.M.Abdu v. State of Kerala an unreported judgment in M.F.A. No. 3 of 2007 dated 14.3.2013, the Tribunal held that going by S.2(f) of the Act of 1971, if the Court is satisfied from the evidence produced before it that an item of property is not a forest, by its characteristics or otherwise, it can be held that it is not a private forest. In other words if an applicant before the Tribunal establishes that a property situated in Malabar district is not having the characteristics or features of a forest immediately prior to 10.05.1971, then such land cannot be said to be a private forest under S.2 (f) of the Act of 1971. It is on this premise that the applications were considered and disposed of, which we find to be legally erroneous from a reading of the Act and also the Full Bench decision in K.C.Moosa Haji (supra).

2. It was following K.M.Abdu (supra) that the learned Tribunal found that, if it is proved that a land is not a forest, then it cannot be a private forest and would not be one covered under the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949 (hereinafter, MPPF Act). Section 2 (f) of the Act of 1971, which defines private forest by sub-clause (1) first, makes the word relatable to the Malabar district. The first requirement hence is that the private forest should be within the erstwhile Malabar district as referred to in the States Reorganization Act, 1956. A reading of S.2(f)(1)(i) would make it clear that any land to which the MPPF Act applies immediately before the appointed day, excluding those covered under clause A to D would be a private forest under the Act of 1971, if it is within the Malabar district. Again by sub-clause (ii) of Section 2(f)(1), any forest not owned by the Government to which the MPPF Act does not apply including waste lands enclosed within wooded areas would be private forest under the Act of 1971 and as per sub-clause (2) of S.2(f)(1), any forest not owned by the Government including waste lands enclosed within wooden areas, located in the other parts of the State of Kerala would also come within the definition. When we look at the different clauses defining private forests; within the erstwhile Malabar district; lands to which MPPF Act of 1971 is applicable, which do not stand excluded by clauses A to D of S.2(f)(1)(i) is private forest; whether the land has the characteristics of a forest or not. Similarly forests, not owned by the Government, again within the Malabar district, on which MPPF Act does not apply including waste lands enclosed within wooded areas, would come under the definition of a private forest by virtue of Section 2(f)(1)(ii) of the Act of 1971. Hence, when we examine the exclusions at A to D, it is not merely lands having the characteristics or nature of a forest that is covered by the MPPF Act, which would fall under the definition of the Act of 1971. Any lands within the Malabar district, to which the MPPF Act applies come within the definition of forest. However, only forests, which are not covered by the MPPF Act, within the erstwhile Malabar district and those situated in the remaining areas of the State of Kerala;

would come within the definition of 'private forests' under the Act of 1971. Under section 2(f)(1)(ii) & 2(f)(2) to be private forests, it should have the nature and characteristics of a forest. When considering a land for exclusion under S.2(f)(1)(i), the said consideration is not at all relevant, especially looking at the words employed in the said provision of : 'any land' as distinguished from that employed in S.2(f)(1)(ii) and S.2(f)(2) :

'any forest'.

3. In K.M.Abdu (supra), a co-ordinate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top