KUNJANAM ANTONY (DEAD) BY LR5. versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 967 · Decided: 06-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

'· 
KUNJANAM ANTONY (DEAD) BY LR5. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 6, 2003 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
B 
Kera/a "Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971: 
Ss. 2/( /)((i)(B) and 3-Private forest-Vesting of in State-Appellant's 
claim for exclusion from vesting of in State certain land allegedly used C 
principally for cultivation of rubber plantation-Rejected by High Court-
Held, High Court is right in holding that the burden of showing that the land 
was not a private forest was on the appellant and the appellant had failed to 
establish her claim-The material on record indicates that the appellant has 
been cultivating topioca-There is also nothing on record to show that absence D 
of rubber plantation was for short period and that the land was in the process 
of rubber plantation-Appellant has not established that the lands were used 
Fincipally for cultivation of rubber plantation. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURJSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5351 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.10.1990 of the High Court of 
Kerala at Ernakulam in MFA No. 513/85. 
T.L.V. Iyer, and K.V. Sreekumar for the Appellants. 
Ramesh Babu M.R. for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
In this appeal, the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of 
Kerala in M.F.A. No. 513of1985, dated October 3, 1990, is brought under 
E 
F 
challenge. 
G 
The proceedings arise out of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and 
Assignment) Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Forest Act') which came into force on 
May 10, 1971. Section 3 of the Forest Act is a vesting section which says, 
inter alia, that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the 
967 
H 
968 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
rio03] I S.C.R. 
A time being in force, or in any contract or other document with effect on and. 
from the appointed day (10.5.1971) the ownership and possession of all 
private forests in the State of Kerala shall by virtue of that Act stand transferred 
to and vested in the Government free from all encumbrances, and the right, 
title and interest of the owner or any other person in any private forest shall 
B stand extinguished. This provision is subject to sub-section (2) and (3). of 
Section 3 with which we are not concerned here. 
c 
For understanding the scope of this provision, it is necessary to examine 
the definition of the expression 'private forest' in clause (t) of .Section 2 of 
the Forest Act. The relevant provision of the definition reads as under: 
"(t) "p~ivate forest" means 
(I) in relation to the Malabar district referred to in sub-section (2) 
of section 5 ofthe State Reorganisation Act, 1956 (central Act 37 of 
1956)-
D 
(i) any land to which the Madras Preservation of Private Forest 
E 
Act, 1949 (Madras Act XXVll of 1949), applied immediately before 
the appointed day excluding-
(A) land which are gardens or nilams as defined in the Kerala 
Land Reforms Act, 1963 (I of 1964 ). 
(B) lands which are used principally for the cultivation of tea, 
coffee, cocoa, rubber, cardamon or cinnamon and lands used for any 
purpose ancillary to the cultivation of such crops or for the preparation 
of the same for the market." 
F 
A plain reading of the definition, extracted above, shows, inter alia, 
that if any land is under the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949 
(Madras Act 27 of 1949) before the appointed day, it would be a private 
forest. from the scope of the private forest are excluded lands, inter alia, 
which are used princiJally for the cultivation .of tea; coffee, cocoa, rubber, 
G cardamon or cinnamon and also those lands which are used for any purpose 
ancillary to cultivation of such crops or for preparation of the same for the 
market. For exclusion of the land from the application of the Act as not being 
private forest, it is not necessary that the land should be in actual cultivation 
of rubber, tea, coffee, etc. at all times. It is enough to prove that it is used 
principally for the· cultivation of rubber, tea, coffee, etc. There should be 
H continuity in cultivation of rubber, tea, coffee, etc. to prove principal use; and 
r 
+ 
... 
...... 
KUNJANAM ANTONY v. ST A TE 
969 
absence of cultivation for short periods due to clear felling or other ancillary A 
purposes would not militate against the principal use of the land for cultivation 
rubber. tea. coffee. etc. 
The appellant claims to be the owner of an extelll of 17. 74 acres of land 
in R.S.No.12
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.