The court upheld the Tribunal's findings that properties were exempted from vesting under Section 3(2) of the Vesting Act due to cultivation.

Sathish Ninan, J.

Order of the Forest Tribunal declaring the application schedule properties in OA 27/2017 and OA 28/2017 as exempted from vesting under Section 3 (2) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act , 1971, (for short 'The Vesting Act') is under challenge in this appeal by the State.

2. The properties involved in the OAs lie adjacent and the basic title is one and the same. The larger extent of property including the OA schedule properties belonged in Jenmom to one Poomulli Mana. It was taken on Kanam right under Kanam deed No.2013/1932 of Parali SRO by the predecessor-in-interest of the applicants. The application schedule property in OA 27/2017 is 10 cents and in OA 28/2017 is 45 cents. This forms part of item No.5 in the schedule to Ext.A4 partition entered into the family of the predecessors on 29.12.1972. The applicants are the subsequent MFA (Forest) No.59 of 2022 assignees. The applicants claim that the property was under cultivation as on the appointed day.

3. The Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants under Section 3 (2) of the Vesting Act declaring that the properties are exempted from vesting.

4. We have heard Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) and Sri.Sajan Varghese K., the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The short question for determination is whether the applicants are entitled for exemption under Section 3 (2) of the Vesting Act. The application schedule property in OA 27/2017 is only 10 cents. The Commissioner's Report reveals that the property lies enclosed within a compound wall on all the four sides. A very old house is situated in the property. The Commissioner also noticed that there is a rubber sheet winding machine in the property. He also noticed that the entire western and northern side of the property is cultivated with rubber. So also he noticed 3 jack fruit trees aged 25 to 30 years, 3 jack fruit trees aged 35 to 40 years, one teak aged 20 to 30 years one palmyrah aged 40 to 45 years, and three coconut trees aged 30 to MFA (Forest) No.59 of 2022

35 years. The report is sufficient enough to find the nature of the small extent of property involved OA 27/2017 as on the appointed day. We concur with the Tribunal in its finding that the said property is liable to be exempted under Section 3 (2) of the Act.

6. Now coming to the property in OA 28/2017, the extent of property as described in the schedule is 45 cents. The Commissioner found the extent of property as only 31.3 cents. The Commissioner's Report mentions the existence of 45 rubber trees in the property which lies adjoining to the property in OS 27/2017. As was noticed earlier the property was taken on kanam right from the original jenmi for the purpose of cultivation. The description of the property in Ext.A4 title deed and the subsequent deeds are as ‘Paramba’. The eastern boundary of the larger extent of property is described as a small lane (“ഇടട്ടിൽ വഴട്ടി”), while the other three boundaries are described as “പറമ”. PW2 is a neighbor who is aged 65 years. She has deposed that the property involved in both the OAs were under cultivation as on the appointed day. The evidence of PW2 was found reliable by the MFA (Forest) No.59 of 2022 Tribunal. Nothing could be brought to our notice to discredit the testimony of PW2. The evidence of PW2 coupled with the other materials on record noticed supra justifies the finding of the Tribunal that the property is liable to be exempted under Section

3(2) of the Vesting Act.

7. We find that the order of the Tribunal is founded on the materials on record and warrants no interference.

Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.