Dismissed

K.a.Stanly v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Aug 2017MFA (FOREST)/25/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This first appeal challenges the Forest Tribunal's dismissal of applications concerning property vesting under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The Tribunal found properties under Section 2(f)(2) despite them not meeting the minimum acreage for the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no consistent evidence of pr

What did the court decide?

The first appeal was dismissed without costs.

K.a.Stanly Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2017/12TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

MFA (FOREST).No. 25 of 2013 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER IN OA 41/2008,42/2008 AND 43/2008 of FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE DATED 31-10-2012

¶7

APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS:

¶8

1. K.A.STANLY S/O.ABRAHAM, KIZHAKKETHIL, ANKARA MALLANKAD, NECHUR P.O., - 678 722, TOLANNUR, ALATHUR TALUK.

¶9

2. K.A.JANCY RATNAKUMARI, D/O.ABRAHAM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,

¶10

K.A.STANLY, S/O.ABRAHAM, KIZHAKKETHIL ANKARA MALLANKAD, NECHUR P.O. 678 722 TOLANNUR, ALATHUR TALUK.

¶11

3. K.A.ANITHA JOYCE, D/O.ABRAHAM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.A.STANLY, S/O.ABRAHAM, KIZHAKKETHIL ANKARA MALLANKAD NECHUR P.O. 678 722

¶12

TOLANNUR, ALATHUR TALUK.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SMT.S.SANTHY

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,

¶16

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

(.....2)

¶18

MFA (FOREST).No. 25 of 2013

¶19

¶20

2. CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FOREST, ARANYA BHAVAN, FOREST COMPLEX, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD.

¶21

R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SPL. GOVT. PLEADER FOR FORESTS

¶22

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL (FOREST) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

OKB

¶24

K.HARILAL & P. SOMARAJAN, JJ.

¶25

¶26

M.F.A (Forest) No.25 of 2013

¶27

--------------------------Dated this the 3^rd day of August, 2017

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Somarajan, J.

¶30

Aggrieved by the order dated 31/10/2012 in O.A.Nos.41/2008, 42/2008 and 43/2008 on the files of the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode, the applicants came up with this first appeal.

¶31

Three separate O.As were filed before the Forest Tribunal, concerning 79 cents of property, 80 cents of property and 93 cents of property comprised in Sy.Nos.376/1 and 565/12, by the applicants, the brother and two sisters. The Forest Tribunal dismissed all these applications by the common order dated 31/10/2012, which is under challenge in this appeal. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that there is a specific finding by the Forest Tribunal that the

¶32

MFA(Forest).25/13-E :2:

¶33

properties will not come under the purview of Section 2(f) (1)(i) of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (for short “the Vesting Act”) as there is no application of Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949 (for short, “M.P.P.F. Act”), since the whole extent of the land wherein the portions of the property, which are the subject matter of the three O.As, does not satisfy the minimum requirement of 100 acres. The Forest Tribunal, then entered into a finding that it would not come under the purview of M.P.P.F Act; but found that the land would come under the purview of Section 2(f)(2) of the Vesting Act. The said finding is under challenge in this appeal.

¶34

Even the appellants/applicants herein came into possession of the property only after the year 1991 and they do not have any knowledge with respect to the nature of the property as on the appointed day, i.e., the 10^th May, 1971. Further, the documents of title claimed by them as Exts.A1 to A5 would also throw away their case because of the reason that the settlement is alleged to have been

¶35

MFA(Forest).25/13-E :3:

¶36

executed by their father Abraham. It is stated that the property was obtained by way of verumpattam lease. On the other hand, they have set up a case based on Ext.A13, a Will alleged to have been left out by their grandfather as in the year 1969, and this is the only document which shows and stands in favour of the appellants/applicants prior to the appointed day, i.e., 10/5/1971. But, going by the above said document, Ext.A13, it is not clear and it is not discernible whether the three sets of properties, which are the subject matter of the three O.As were included in the above said document (A13). There is nothing in the above said document to show that these three pieces of properties were included in the said document by the testator, the grandfather of the present applicants. Further, the nature of acquisition is also not mentioned anywhere in that document. So the said document cannot be accepted on two grounds; firstly, on the ground that, in that document, nothing was mentioned with respect to these three items of property. Secondly on the reason that

¶37

MFA(Forest).25/13-E :4:

¶38

the case advanced in the O.As is based on the settlement deed exhibited as A1 and the acquisition of property is stated as by a direct lease arrangement by the father and not by the grand father. It is stated that Abraham, the executant of the settlement deed, had obtained the property by way of a verumpattam deed, which is inconsistent. In short, even the appellants did not have any consistent case with respect to the way in which the property was acquired and how they derived title over the property.

¶39

In short, the applicants had given up Ext.A13 document by advancing an entirely different version inconsistent with the said document. Further, no evidence was adduced to show that verumpattam right was obtained directly by the father of the applicants.

¶40

As discussed earlier, they came into possession of the property only after the year 1991. All the documents except Ext.A13 are of the year 1991 and subsequent to 1991, after the appointed day. The only document in

¶41

MFA(Forest).25/13-E :5:

¶42

relation to the alleged title claimed by the appellants prior to the appointed day is Ext.A13 Will, wherein nothing was mentioned, with respect to these three items of properties. So, we cannot find any reason for interference with the order passed by the Forest Tribunal and this appeal deserves only dismissal and we do so.

¶43

In the result, this appeal is dismissed but without

¶44

costs.

¶45

K.HARILAL, Judge.

¶46

Sd/P.SOMARAJAN, Judge.

¶47

okb.

K.a.Stanly v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.a.Stanly v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Premakumari Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs Union of India

Choori Abdulrahiman Vs K.P.Udayakumar

Shobhanakumari K.C Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

Rakesh P.R. Vs Union of India

Anitha Vs Ahammed Kabeer