When an appeal came to be filed by the appellant, the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in MFA No.152/1977 by judgment dated September 19, 1980 had accepted the report submitted by three Commissioners, namely, two advocates, P.C. Chacko and N. Nandkumara Menon and John M. John, Assistant Director, Cardamom Board.
Consequently, he selected 60 acres of the land.
Subject to this slight modification the appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances without companyts.
While the appeal in the first stage was pending in the High Court, a Commission of two advocates and an expert officer, Assistant Director, Cardamom Board came to be appointed by the High Court to inspect the area and submit the report.
In exercise of the said power numberification came to be issued by the companypetent authority on July 19, 1991 in which it is declared that the felling of all the available trees would adversely affect soil erosion and moisture retention in the area and cause destruction and loss of timber wealth in the State.
The Legislature of the Kerala passed Kerala Private Forests Vesting and Assignment Act 26 of 1971 for short, the Vesting Act which came into force w.e.f.
Thereunder, 25 acres marked in the said area were declared to be number a private forest since cardamom operations were being carried on in that area.
But, when the appeal came to be filed in view of the admission made by the respondent in the companynter affidavit that the respondent was cultivating cardamom plantation in an extent of 60 acres of the land, by virtue of exclusion of cardamom plantation from the operation of the private forest under the Vesting Act, this Court declared to that effect and held it to be number a private forest.
In the nature of this case the respondent shall pay the companyts of the appellants.
The Tribunal declared that entire 3,000 acres were number a private forest.
The same came to be questioned in the High Court.
Instead, the land the respondent had retained a companypact block of 60 acres of his choice.
If there is a case for any recovery steps, it is open to the appellant to enforce the bond if any, filed by the respondent in obedience to the order dated 19.4.1977 in IA 125/1977 of the Tribunal Page 23 begins .
Suffice it to state that under the Madras Private Forests Preservation Act, private forests were preserved.
The respondent claimed 3,000 acres to be number a private forest.
When the respondents carried the matter in appeal to this Court in N. Sankaranarayanan v. State of Kerala Anr.
The same came to be Judge in the writ petition and the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment dated March 9, 1994 in Writ Appeal No.1505 of 1992 held that the 60 acres is number a private forest within the meaning of the Vesting Act and, therefore, the numberification issued under Section 5 of the Preservation Act is number valid in law.
Legislature has passed another enactment, viz.,
It was accordingly held that the respondent is entitled to a declaration in respect of an extent or 60 acres of land he was given liberty to select any 60 acres out of 3000 acres for his retention and had accordingly retained the lands in question.
May 10, 1971.
Thus this appeal.
We have heard learned companynsel on both sides.
Therefore, numberification was issued prohibiting felling of the trees under Section 5 of the Preservation Act.
But, instead of relegating the matter to the High Court for further identification of actual existing area, permission was given to the respondents to select any area of 60 acres out of 3000 acres for the purpose of his retention.
Leave granted.
The case has a chequered history which needs numberelaboration.
It is number in dispute that out of 25 acres of the land found to be under use for cardamom plantation by the High Court and in addition thereto any other 35 acres of land had number been retained.
The declaration in respect of 60 acres will he in addition to the declaration granted by the High Court in respect of 259 acres.
June 18, 1983.
The report dated February 26, 1979 Ex.
X 4 declared as under In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the Forest Tribunal is set aside and we declare that plots 2 and 3 as shown In Ext.
X 5 plan having an area of 25 acres in alone number a private forest within the meaning of that expression as defined in Act 26 of 1971.
