Back
2007 Supreme(Online)(KER) 38235
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
J.B.KOSHY, K.HEMA, JJ
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
CHELLAMMA – Respondent
MFA/93/2001
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Court established that land must meet specific statutory definitions to qualify as a private forest under the Act, impacting ownership rights.
Headnote:
Forest - Private Forest - Kerala Private Forests (Vesting & Assignments) Act - Sections 2(f), 3(1) - The Court affirmed that land claimed as private forest does not meet the statutory definition and thus remains with the landowners.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents claimed possession of 47 cents of land, asserting it as a private forest under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting & Assignments) Act. The Forest Tribunal ruled on this matter, prompting an appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's findings, supported by the Commission Report, indicating the land was not a wooded area nor a private forest as defined by the Act. The evidence showed it was a paramba instead.
Issues: Whether the land in question qualifies as a private forest under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting & Assignments) Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The definition of 'private forest' was crucial, highlighting that without governmental ownership and wooded features, the land could not be classified as such under the pertinent Act.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Koshy, J.
Respondents 3 in number filed an application before the Forest Tribunal that their possession of 47 cents of land owned by them is interfered by the forest officials, contending that it is a private forest vested under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting & Assignments) Act (in short, 'the Act'). The application was considered by the Tribunal in detail. The term, 'private forest' is defined in Section 2(f) of the Act. Admittedly, the area in question was in Thrissur district and not covered by the MPPF Act. With regard to the other areas, to be a private forest it should be a forest not owned by the Government including waste lands which are enclaves within wooded areas. The Commission Report shows that it is not a wooded area or enclaves within wooded area. Merely because after demarcation the forest officials notified that it is a part of forest, it will not become a private forest even if there is no notification. If it is a private forest, it is automatically vested in the government as provided under Section 3(1) of the Act. Here, the Commission Report has clearly stated that it is not a wooded area and it is not a forest, when the Act came into force. The earliest documents regarding the MFA.93/01 2 land (partition deed executed as 53 of 1097 ME) also show that it is a paramba and not a private forest. The object of the Act is also not to protect the forest, but to distribute the private forest to the agriculturists to promote agriculture. Here, the total extent of land owned by three respondents is only 47 cents and no purpose will be served if it is given to other agriculturists. In any event, the finding of the Tribunal, on the basis of the oral evidence as well as the evidence of the Commission Report, is very clear that it was not a private forest. There were no forest trees in the area. According to the Commission Report, it was a plain area. The Commission also found that there are 161 cashew trees aged 17 years, apart from 6 mango trees, aged more than 20 years. The southern and eastern boundaries of the properties are parambas and the northern boundary of the property is Malampuzha canal. Exhibits A1 and A2 are the previous documents. That also indicate that it is a paramba and never a forest. From the totality of the evidence, the Tribunal correctly found that it is not a private forest. We see no ground to interfere with the findings entered into by the Tribunal in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.
J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.
MFA.93/01 3 J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ.
M.F.A.NO.93 OF 2001
JUDGMENT
17.12.2007
