Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8168 OF 2010
P.T. Sreenarayanan Unni & Ors. …Appellants
versus
State of Kerala & Ors. …Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8433 OF 2010
J U D G M E N T
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The present Civil Appeals have been filed to challenge the
final Judgment and Order dated 01.01.2008 passed by the
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam [hereinafter referred to as
Signature Not Verified
“the High Court”] in MFA No. 389 of 2002.
Digitally signed by
NEELAM GULATI
Date: 2019.08.16
15:20:36 IST
Reason:
1
2. The factual matrix in which the present Civil Appeals arises
is briefly stated as under :
2.1. The Appellants through their Partnership Firm viz.
Maduthala Plantations, purchased 100 acres of private
forest land in Survey No. 186/1A1 of Kunnathidavaka
Village vide registered Sale Deed dated 15.05.1967.
2.2. In 1971, the Government of Kerala enacted the Kerala
Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971
[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”].
Section 3 of the Act reads as follows :–
Section 3 Private forests vest in
Government:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, or in any
contract or other document but subject to the
provisions of subsections (2) and (3), with effect
on and from the appointed day, the ownership
and possession of all private forests in the State
of Kerala shall by virtue of this Act, stand
transferred to and vested in the Government free
from all encumbrances, and the right, title and
interest of the owner or any other person in any
private forest shall stand extinguished.
(2) Nothing contained in subsection (1) shall
apply in respect of so much extent of land
comprised in private forests held by an owner
under his personal cultivation as is within the
2
ceiling limit applicable to him under the Kerala
Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964) or any
building or structure standing thereon or
appurtenant thereto.
Explanation: For the purposes of this sub
section, ‘cultivation’ includes cultivation of trees
or plants of any species.
(3) Nothing contained in subsection (1) shall
apply in respect of so much extent of private
forests held by an owner under a valid
registered document of title executed before the
appointed day and intended for cultivation by
him, which together with another lands held by
him to which Chapter III of the Kerala Land
Reforms Act, 1963, is applicable, does not
exceed the extent of the ceiling area applicable to
him under Section 82 of the said Act.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, private forests
shall, for the purposes of subsection (2) or
subsection (3), be deemed to be lands to which
Chapter III of the said Act is applicable and for
the purposes of calculating the ceiling limit
applicable to an owner, private forests shall be
deemed to be ‘other dry lands’ specified in
Schedule II to the said Act.
(emphasis supplied)
As per Section 3(1) of the Act, the ownership and
possession of all private forests in the State of Kerala
vested in the State Government with effect from
10.05.1971.
Section 3(2) provided an exemption if the land was
under personal cultivation of the owner.
3
Section 3(3) provided a further exemption if the land
was intended for cultivation, and if the extent of land
was below the ceiling limit under Section 82 of the
Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.
The constitutional validity of the Act was upheld by
1
this Court in State of Kerala v. Gwalior Rayon .
2.3. The 100 acres of land comprised in Survey No.
186/1A1 was private forest land, which vested in the
State Government w.e.f. 10.05.1971.
2.4. In 1975, the Forest Department took over possession of
the aforesaid land.
2.5. In 1990 i.e. 19 years after the land had vested in the
State Government, and 15 years after possession was
taken over by the Forest Department, the Appellants
filed O.A. No. 204/1990 under Section 8 of the Act
before the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode.
The Appellants sought a Declaration that out of the
100 acres of land in Survey No. 186/1A1, 79 acres and
68.5 cents was not private forest land. They claimed
1 (1973) 2 SCC 713.
4
exemption under Section 3(2) of the Act, and submitted
that they were cultivating the land with various
agricultural crops such as rubber, coffee, cardamom,
cocoa and lemon grass.
2.6. The Tribunal appointed a Commissioner to carry out
inspection of the land.
The first inspection was carried out in 1993. As per
the Report submitted by the Commissioner, there was
no improvement on the land.
The second inspection was carried out on
20.05.1995. As per the Report submitted by the
Commissioner, major portions of the land in question,
and the adjoining vested forest, was planted with
acacia trees aged approximately 8 years.
The third inspection was carried out on 24.01.1998.
As per the Report submitted by the Commissioner, the
entire area of the land was mainly planted with acacia
and silver oaks aged 10 to 12 years.
5
As per the Final Report submitted by the
Commissioner, the property purchased by the
Appellants originally admeasured 100 acres. Out of the
100 acres, 80 acres of land vested in the State, while
20 acres of land was retained by the Appellants. Out of
the said 20 acres, 12.60 acres of land was taken by the
State as excess land under the provisions of the Kerala
Land Reforms Act, 1963.
2.7. The Forest Tribunal Order dated 11.07.2000
vide
dismissed the O.A. filed by the Appellants.
It was held that there was no evidence to show that
the land in Survey No. 186/1A1 was cultivated with
any agricultural crops prior to 10.05.1971.
As a consequence, the Appellants were not entitled to
claim the exemption under Section 3(2) on the ground
that the land was under their personal cultivation.
2.8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Order, the Appellants filed
MFA No. 389/2002 before the High Court. The High
6
Court vide impugned final Judgment and Order dated
01.01.2008 dismissed the Appeal.
It was held that in view of the 3 Reports submitted
by the Commissioner, there was no evidence of any
cultivation on the Appellants’ property on or prior to
the date of vestment i.e. 10.05.1971. Hence, the
Appellants were not entitled to the exemption under
Section 3(2) of the Act.
The Appellants produced a Registration Certificate
from the Rubber Board for cultivating 10 acres of land
which was issued prior to vesting. The Commissioner’s
Reports revealed that the Appellants were in
possession of 20 acres and 31.5 cents of land. Out of
the said area, 12.5 acres of land had been surrendered
as excess land under the Ceiling Act. The Appellants
were therefore, in active possession of only 7.85 acres
of land.
The High Court held that against the claim of the
Appellants for 79 acres and 68.5 cents of land, the
7
Appellants were entitled to get exemption under
Section 3(3) only with respect to 7.85 acres of land.
2.9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment, the Appellants
filed the present Civil Appeals.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and
perused the material on record.
3.1. The Appellants contended that the land in question
falls in the Malabar District. Hence, as per Section 2(f)
(1) of the Act, the land in question is not private forest
land, and could not have been taken over by the State.
Section 2(f) of the Act defines a “private forest”.
Section 2(f) is set out hereinbelow for ready reference :
“2(f) "private forest" means
(1) in relation to the Malabar district referred to
in subsection (2) of Section 5 of the State
Reorganization Act, 1956 (Central Act 37 of
1956)
(i) any land which the Madras Preservation of
Private Forest Act, 1949 (Madras Act XXVII of
1949), applied immediately before the appointed
day excluding
(A) land which are gardens or nilams as defined
in the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 1963 (1 of
1964).
8
(B) lands which are used principally for the
cultivation of tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber,
cardamom or cinnamon and lands used for any
purpose ancillary to the cultivation of such crops
or for the preparation of the same for the market.
Explanation: Lands used for the construction of
office buildings, godowns, factories, quarters for
workmen, hospitals, schools and playgrounds
shall be deemed to be lands used purposes
ancillary to the cultivation of such crops;
(C) lands which are principally cultivated with
cashed or other fruit bearing trees or are
principally cultivated and any other agricultural
crop and
(D) sites of buildings and land appurtenant to
and necessary for the convenient enjoyment or
use of such buildings;
(ii) any forest not owned by the Government, to
which the Madras Preservation of private
Forests Act, 1949 did not apply, including waste
lands which are enclaves within wooded areas.
(2) in relation to the remaining areas in the State
of Kerala any forest not owned by the
Government including waste lands which are
enclaves within wooded areas.
Explanation: For the purpose of this clause, a
land shall be deemed to be waste land
notwithstanding the existence thereon of
scattered trees or shrubs.”
4. The land in question falls in the Malabar District. As a
consequence, subsection (1) of Section 2(f) would be
applicable in the present case.
9
As per Clause (i) of subsection (1) of Section 2(f), “private
forest” includes any land to which the Madras Preservation of
Private Forest Act, 1949 applied prior to 10.05.1971.
However, it excludes lands which were principally under
cultivation of tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber, cardamom or
cinnamon and lands used for any purpose ancillary to the
cultivation of such crops or for the preparation of the same
for the market.
The land in question vested in the State on 10.05.1971 i.e.
more than 48 years ago. The possession was taken over by
the State in 1975. The Courts below have arrived at a finding
of fact that there was no cultivation whatsoever on the land
in question on 10.05.1971. The Appellants have failed to
produce any evidence of cultivation on the land in question.
The land in question is therefore, covered by the definition
of “private forest” under the Act, and the Act makes it clear
that all private forests in the State of Kerala would
automatically vest in the State Government with effect from
10.05.1971. The Appellants are not entitled to the
10
exemptions under subsections (2) and (3) of Section 3 of the
Act.
We however, affirm the exemption granted by the High
Court under Section 3(3) with respect to 7.85 acres of land.
In light of the aforesaid discussion, the Civil Appeals are
dismissed. All pending Applications, if any, are accordingly
disposed of.
Ordered accordingly.
.......................................J.
(INDU MALHOTRA)
...…...............………………J.
(SANJIV KHANNA)
New Delhi;
August 16, 2019.
11