1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10075-10076 of 2014

STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

… APPELLANTS

VERSUS

MOHAMMED BASHEER

… RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.

1.

The appellant-State of Kerala has preferred these appeals challenging the

legality and correctness of the judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala in

M.F.A. No.160 of 1991 dated 18.09.2001 and the order in RP No.572 of 2001 in

M.F.A. No.160 of 1991 dated 06.02.2007.

2.

The respondent herein filed a petition in the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad under

Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (for

short 'the KPF Act') for settlement of the dispute in relation to land measuring

about 2 acres bearing R.S No. 1200, Muppenad (now in Vellar mala village)

Vythiri Taluk, Wynad district (for short 'the land'). In the petition, it was contended

Digitally signed by

SUSHIL KUMAR

RAKHEJA

Date: 2019.01.22

17:56:53 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

that one K.C. Kunji Moosa had orally leased the land in favour of the respondent's

father in the year 1962 and that his father was personally cultivating the land; after

the death of his father, he was personally cultivating the land. It is not a private

forest as defined under Section 2(f) of the KPF Act; the land was principally

planted with coffee long before the appointed day; thus, it had not vested in the

government under Section 3 of the KPF Act; he was issued a certificate of

purchase under Section 72K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short 'the

Land Reforms Act') by the Land Tribunal in respect of the said land. It was

further contended that on 25.02.1987, the officials of Social Forestry Department

entered the land and destroyed the coffee plants. In this connection, he had

complained to the local police and the Village Officer, and that till 25.02.1987,

there was no obstruction for cultivating the land from the forest officials.

3.

The appellants filed a counter-affidavit disputing the claim of the

respondent. It was contended that the land has not been cultivated and that the

certificate of purchase produced by the respondent is not binding on them. The

respondent was not in possession of the land as on the date of vesting or

subsequent to that date. The land was vested in the government on 10.05.1971 and

is under the custody of the Forest Department since then. Since there is no

evidence to show the respondent's title or possession over the land on the appointed

day, his claim under Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the KPF Act is not sustainable.

3

4.

The Tribunal, by its order dated 30.06.1990, dismissed the petition. The

respondent challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the High Court.

The High Court, by its order dated 18.09.2001, allowed the writ petition and set

aside the order of the Tribunal. The review petition filed by the appellant-State

was dismissed by the High Court on 06.02.2007.

5.

Appearing for the appellant-State, Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned senior

counsel, submits that the local inspection report shows that no cultivation

whatsoever was seen in the land. The Tribunal found that the land was a private

forest at the time of coming into force of the KPF Act. The only document

produced by the respondent was the certificate of purchase issued by the Land

Tribunal to prove his title to the property. The certificate of purchase is not

conclusive as regards the title and possession. Forest Department was not a party

to the said proceedings and hence, it is not bound by the said certificate. The other

documents produced by the respondent, such as revenue receipts do not prove title

of the respondent over the land. It is argued that the respondent has failed to

establish his possession with valid title to the land as on 10.05.1974 or thereafter.

Therefore, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of