Deepak Gupta JUDGMENT
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 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.
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 fo........