JOSEPH AND ANR. versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 347 · Decided: 10-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

JOSEPH AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 
MAY 10. 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.) 
B 
.). 
Kera/a Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971: 
Ss.3(3), 3(1), 3(2), 2{a), 2(c) & 2(j) -Vesting of private forest with the c 
State Government in terms of the Act-Exemption from-Claim for-Granted 
by Tribunal in terms of s.3(3)-But that order set aside by High Court on 
ground that the Appellant-land owners did not plead or prove as required 
under s.3(3) that they intended to cultivate the land prior to 10.05.1971, the 
appointed day specified in the Act-Land in question was purchased in 
1966-Held: High Court was not correct in holding that for applying s.3(3), D 
cultivation of land subsequent to the vesting cannot be taken into account-
,._. 
It also was not correct in arriving at finding that there had been no evidence 
y 
whatsoever that the owners intended to cultivate the land prior to 
10.05.1971-For attracting s.3(3), it was not necessary that the entire area 
should have been cultivated for arriving at a decision as to whether the E 
owner of the land had the intention to cultivate or not-Also, it was required 
to be co11Sidered having regard to the activities carried on by the owner from 
the day of purchase till the appointed day-Subsequent conduct of the owner 
of the land was also relevant. 
s.8A-Appeal under, before High Court-Scope and ambit of-Is limited. F 
The Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 was 
enacted to provide for vesting of private forests with the State Government. 
Dispute arose as to whether the land in question was private forest and vested 
in the State Government by virtue of the provisions of the 1971 Act. Appellants 
had purchased the said land prior to the appointed day specified in the 1971 G 
Act, i.e. 10th May, 1971. They filed application before the Forest Tribunal 
claiming relief of exemption from vesting of the said land. Tribunal granted 
-,.. 
exemption in terms of Section 3(3) of the 1971 Act. Against the order, no 
appeal was preferred by the State. Subsequently, a provision for review of the 
347 
H 
348 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 6 S.C.R. 
A order of Tribunal was introduced by way of insertion of Section 88 in the 
'I 
1971 Act, pursuant to which the State filed review petition but the same was 
dismissed. On appeal, the High Court held that for exempting land u/s 3(3) of 
the Act, Appellants were required to show that they were holding the land in 
question with the intention to cultivate the same with rubber, coffee or any 
B 
other type of cultivation prior to or as on i.e. 10th May, 1971, the appointed 
day specified in the Act but there was no such pleading and evidence in the 
present case, hence, Section 3(3) of the Act cannot be applied for granting 
exemption to Appellants. The Court held that for applying Section 3(3) of the 
Act, cultivation of the property subsequent to the vesting cannot be taken into 
i. 
account. Hence the present appeals. 
c 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. The High Court was not correct in its view in regard to its 
construction of Section 3(3) of the 1971 Act. The Tribunal, while exercising 
its power under Section 8 of the 1971 Act, had taken into consideration the 
D question which arose before it, viz., as to whether the appellants herein had 
intention to cultivate the land on the appointed day. Appointed day having been 
defined in the 1971 Act, the relevant aspect was the situation as it existed on 
.. 
that day, i.e., on 10.05.1971. For the purpose of attracting Sub-section (3) of 
... 
Section 3 of the 1971 Act, it was not necessary that the entire area should 
y' 
E have been cultivated for arriving at a decision as to whether the owner of the 
land had the intention to cultivate or not Also, it was required to be considered 
having regard to the activities carried on by the owner from the day of 
purchase till the appointed day. For the said purpose, subsequent conduct of 
the owner of the land was also relevant. Development of the land by plantation 
F 
of rubber plants is not in dispute. The Explanation appended to Section 3(2) of 
the 1971 Act clearly suggests that cultivation would include cultivation of 
trees or plants of any species. Intention to cultivate by the owner of the land 
has to be gathered not only in regard to the fact situation obtaining at a 
particular time but also with regard to the subsequent conduct of the parties. 
[f the activity in regard

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.