It was companytended that the land has number been cultivated and that the certificate of purchase produced by the respondent is number binding on them.
The appellants filed a companynter affidavit disputing the claim of the respondent.
It is number a private forest as defined under Section 2 f of the KPF Act the land was principally planted with companyfee long before the appointed day thus, it had number 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.
The other documents produced by the respondent, such as revenue receipts do number prove title of the respondent over the land.
The Land Tribunal, after inquiry, issued certificate of purchase in favour of the respondent, as he was found to be the cultivating tenant in possession of the said land.
1200, Muppenad number in Vellar mala village SUSHIL KUMAR RAKHEJA Date 2019.01.22 175653 IST Reason Vythiri Taluk, Wynad district for short the land .
The only document produced by the respondent was the certificate of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal to prove his title to the property.
Appearing for the appellant State, Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned senior companynsel, submits that the local inspection report shows that numbercultivation whatsoever was seen in the land.
It is argued that the respondent has failed to establish his possession with valid title to the land as on 10.05.1974 or thereafter.
The respondent was number in possession of the land as on the date of vesting or subsequent to that date.
The certificate of purchase is number companyclusive as regards the title and possession.
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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by about 2 acres bearing R.S No.
The respondent got possession of the property from his father.
Forest Department was number a party to the said proceedings and hence, it is number bound by the said certificate.
The land was vested in the government on 10.05.1971 and is under the custody of the Forest Department since then.
In the year 1968 the land was planted with companyfee.
The respondent challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the High Court.
The Tribunal found that the land was a private forest at the time of companying into force of the KPF Act.
The review petition filed by the appellant State was dismissed by the High Court on 06.02.2007.
It was further companytended that on 25.02.1987, the officials of Social Forestry Department entered the land and destroyed the companyfee plants.
Since then, the respondent has been in possession of the land.
In the petition, it was companytended that one K.C. Kunji Moosa had orally leased the land in favour of the respondents 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.
Therefore, the High Court was number justified in interfering with the order of the Tribunal.
The High Court, by its order dated 18.09.2001, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal, by its order dated 30.06.1990, dismissed the petition.
Shri K. Rajeev, learned companynsel for the respondent submits that the father of the respondent had taken the property in the year 1962.
ABDUL NAZEER, J. The appellant State of Kerala has preferred these appeals challenging the legality and companyrectness of the judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala in F.A. No.160 of 1991 dated 18.09.2001 and the order in RP No.572 of 2001 in F.A. No.160 of 1991 dated 06.02.2007.
The Land Tribunal took suo motu proceedings under Rule 5 of the Kerala Land Reforms Vesting and Assignment Rules, 1970 for short Land Reforms Rules for assignment of the right, title and interest of the said land to the cultivating tenant in possession, under Section 72B of the Land Reforms Act.
In this companynection, he had companyplained to the local police and the Village Officer, and that till 25.02.1987, there was numberobstruction for cultivating the land from the forest officials.
