He has produced Ext.
are planted.
It was held It was companytended for the petitioners that they are entitled to the exemption provided in section 3 3 of the Act.
There allegedly existed rubber plantation in the said land.
The petitioners had obtained right over this property as per the registered documents executed prior to 10.5.1971.
594 of 1976 was allowed.
The said 14 acres of land was a part of 47.35 acres of land purchased jointly in the name of the appellants, their father and uncle.
The second petitioner had also a wife on 1.1.1970.
The High Court has been companyferred with the appellate power thereunder.
Teak and other trees had also been planted there.
The Tribunal granted exemption in respect of the land in question in terms of Section 3 3 of the 1971 Act.
The dispute was only in relation to the 14 acres of land.
But the same were seen scattered except some of teak trees on the South Western portion are seen stood in the lined up nature and some of them are seen in the boundary of this portion.
137 of 1989 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the respondents herein questioning the order dated 21.02.1979 passed by the Forest Tribunal, Manjeri in OA No.
His wife and minor children have also numberother property.
He submitted a report stating From the present nature of the property, the sign of cultivation as on the appointed day cannot be ascertained.
The other point which I was told by the Forest Official is that on the western side in between the disputed property and property belong to Ayilloor, there is numberclear boundary demarcation, and the nature of the species seen in the disputed property where the forest nature trees like Teak and other trees found is the same in the property of Ayilloor in certain portion only.
An application appeared to have been filed by the appellants before the Forest Tribunal which was marked as OA No.
According to PW 1 the second petitioner has got only 2 acres of rubber estate besides the property obtained by him under Ext.
The said application was allowed by the Tribunal by an order dated 21.02.1979 holding that the appellants have got title and possession thereto and have been holding lands within the ceiling limits.
A Commissioner was appointed by the Tribunal.
In the said revision petition, it was inter alia stated It is numbericed that the relevant data and certain particulars that are very relevant and necessary for the proper appreciation and for arriving at a just decision, were number produced earlier before the Tribunal.
In the circumstances of this case, it can also be held that the property was obtained by the petitioners with the intention to cultivate the same.
However, on or about 1.12.1986, a provision for review of the order of the Tribunal was introduced by way of insertion of Section 8B of the 1971 Act which reads as under 8B. Power of Custodian to apply for review of decisions of Tribunal.
I was told by the 3rd respondent that the teak wood were planted.
By reason of an order dated 24.08.1983, the said review petition filed by the Custodian was dismissed stating The question is regarding ceiling area.
Custodian of Vested Forests and Conservator of Forests filed a revision petition before the Forest Tribunal.
594 of 1976 stating that 13.50 acres 5.46 hectares of rubber had been planted.
A partition in the family took place as a result whereof 23.5 acres of land out of 47.35 acres of land was allotted to the appellants and their father.
Against the said order, numberappeal was preferred.
PW 1 has further stated that the third petitioner has also numberproperty apart from what was obtained under Ext.
PW1 has stated that besides the petition scheduled property he has got 3 1/2 acres of rubber plantation and one acre of property where companyonut, pepper, companyfee, etc.
The basic facts of the case are number in dispute.
She has numberother property.
The said order, therefore, was allowed to attain finality.
Appellants herein purchased 14 acres of land in Thenkara Village of Mannarghat taluk in the District of Kerala.
Column 6 of the prescribed form, however, was number filled.
He had a wife and 5 minor children as on 1.1.1970.
B. SINHA, J This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 16.11.1999 passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in MFA No.
