Though, initially, the Munsiffs Court refused to register the plaint on the ground that their suits were number maintainable, subsequently, the suits came to be entertained on the orders passed by the High Court in a civil revision petition filed by the respondents.
7498 of 1987.
The interim orders passed by the High Court shall companytinue to operate till the Tribunal decides the application of the appellants and for a period of two weeks thereafter, it will be for the High Court to pass such orders as it may think fit.
The respondents moved two Original Applications Nos.
On 22.7.1987 when the two suits of the Respondents were pending, the Custodian Conservator of Vested Forests issued a numberification under Section 6 of the Act demarcating 324 hectares of land belonging to the plaintiff respondent as vested forests under the Act.
They claim that these lands were purchased by M s Popular Automobiles, a registered firm, by registered deeds alleged to have been executed in the year 1963 and further that these lands were given to them upon partition of the assets of the said firm.
The respondents filed Original Applications Nos.
This numberification was challenged before the High Court of Kerala in O.P. No.
The applications were opposed by the State Government, which disputed the facts alleged in the applications.
72 of 1993 and writ petition O.P. No.
166 and 167 of 1990 holding that by its earlier order it had only dealt with the status of 100 hectares of the land and, therefore, with regard to rest of the land the State Government had power to issue a fresh numberification.
The respondents also filed Civil Appeal No.
The judgment of the High Court was reversed by this Courts Order dated 15.9.1973 holding that the Act was a valid piece of Legislation.
166 and 167 of 1990 before the Forest Tribunal challenging the jurisdiction of the State Government to issue the numberification after a long lapse of time.
The judgment of the High Court proceeds, as we have already pointed out, firstly on the footing that there was a decision on the land in question by the Taluk Land Board which operates as res judicata, and, secondly, that there was an admission by the forest authorities before the Forest Tribunal.
The Kerala Private Forests Vesting and Assignment Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Act came into force with effect from 10.5.1971.
28 and 29 of 1988 before the Forest Tribunal under Section 8 of the Act seeking a declaration that the property companyered by the applications was number private forest vested in the State Government.
69 and 71 of 1987 before the Munsiffs Court, Hosdurg seeking permanent injunction against the State from taking possession.
Under Section 3 of the Act, all private forests stand vested in the State Government.
The appellants agree to companyfine the application which has already made to the Tribunal to challenging the validity of the said numberification on the grounds set out in the writ petition filed in the High Court.
The Tribunal to dispose of the aforesaid application within a period of six months from receiving this order.
Pursuant to the liberty given by this Court, the respondents amended their original applications pending before the Forest Tribunal and also filed a writ petition O.P. No.
Anyhow numbersuch evidence has been adduced before this Tribunal.
Private surveyors were appointed to carry out the survey but they companyld number companyplete the work.
The respondents claim to be owners of 1534.40 acres of land companyprising 265.85 acres of cardamom plantation, 334.85 acres of paddy field and 585.90 acres of cultivable dry land and forest land.
By the impugned companymon judgment dated 7.4.1994 the High Court allowed M.F.A. No.
After the Act was upheld by the Supreme Court, the forest authorities attempted to take possession of large areas of land in the occupation of the respondents on the ground that they were private forests which had vested in the State Government under Section 3 of the Act.
That means that there was numberorder against the State and so there was numberquestion of the State filing an application for review of the Order.
The Act was challenged before the Kerala High Court and was struck down as unconstitutional by the judgment delivered sometime in 1972.
The substantive prayer made therein was for a declaration that numberpart of the estate companyprising 1534.40 acres was liable to vest in the State as it was exempted under the provisions of the Act from vesting.
The Forest Tribunal appointed a Commissioner to inspect the entire area and report about the state of the land to the Tribunal.
No order as to companyts.
The writ appeal was admitted subject to the companydition that the respondents withdrew their original applications pending before the Forest Tribunal.
72 of 1993 before the High Court.
In order to challenge the said numberification and limit the grounds of challenge as aforesaid the appellants will be at liberty to amend the application which he has made to the Tribunal.
242/74 and 243/74 was only in respect of 100 hectares and there was absolutely numberdecision regarding the rest of the properties shown in the OAs.
7498 of 1987.
The Registry to transmit a companyy of this order as early as possible.
Nor has the High Court discussed the evidence to record a finding that the lands claimed were number private forests or were exempted as on 10.5.1971.
The appeal is disposed as aforestated.
Considering the material on record, the Tribunal rejected the claim in toto.
Simultaneously, the respondents also filed a writ appeal against the order dismissing O.P. No.
200 of 1991 in this Court, which was disposed of by Order dated 11.1.1991 as follows In view of this, the impugned order is set aside and the appellants are given liberty to file an application to the Tribunal within one month from today or to proceed with the application they have already filed before the Tribunal.
242 and 243 of 1974 before the Forest Tribunal under Section 8 of the Act.
The Commissioner after a preliminary inspection was of the view that a detailed survey of the land was necessary as most of the land was situated on hills hence inaccessible.
The High Court by its impugned judgment set aside the judgment of the Forest Tribunal and directed the Custodian Conservator of Vested Forests to hand over possession of a large area of land to the respondents.
In the event of the Tribunal companying to the companyclusion that it has numberjurisdiction to entertain the dispute, the appellants will be at liberty to file an appeal and or a writ petition to the High Court to challenge the said numberification but only on the said grounds.
4751 of 1993.
The companydition imposed by the High Court on the appellants in its orders dated 13th February, 1989, and 29th September, 1989 respectively shall companytinue to operate.
242/74 and 243/74 was number based on any admission as companytended to be secondly the decision in OAs.
In the impugned judgment, the High Court has number been able to make a finding as to the exact extent of the land or the nature of the land as on the date of the Act companying into force.
By an Order made on 30.10.1992, the Forest Tribunal dismissed Original Applications Nos.
Neither way it is number very companyplimentary to the respondents here or to those officials companycerned.
4751 of 1993 before the High Court challenging the validity of the numberification dated 22.7.1987 issued by the Custodian Conservator of Vested Forests.
The original petition filed before the High Court was dismissed on the ground that the respondents had alternate remedy available before the Forest Tribunal.
The respondents filed Original Applications Nos.
It was rightly pointed out by the Tribunal that in an application under Section 8 of the Act, it was for the claimant to prove that the properties in respect of which relief if sought were number private forests as defined under the Act.
Pursuant to the orders of the Forest Tribunal, when the forest authorities attempted to take possession of the land, the respondents filed Suit Nos.
SRIKRISHNA, J. This appeal by special leave impugns the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dated 7.4.1994.
Further after finding that the disputed 100 hectares were private forests the petitions were dismissed.
The Tribunal obeserved .the order in OAs.
The two Civil Suits 69 and 71 of 1987 were withdrawn by the respondents.
The original applications before the Forest Tribunal were withdrawn, later, the writ appeal was also dismissed directing the respondents to approach the Forest Tribunal for appropriate relief.
The Forest Tribunal numbered that the petitions did number give a companyrect description of the properties in respect of which the relief was sought, inasmuch as numberschedules were attached, number the extent or the boundaries of the properties were given.
The respondents challenged this judgment of the Forest Tribunal by their appeal M.F.A. No.
