STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. versus A.C.K. RAJAH AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 679 · Decided: 17-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, K.S. PARIPOORNAN

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 
v. 
A.C.K. RAJAH AND ANR. 
AUGUST 17, 1994 
[J.S. VERMA AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Kera/a Forests (vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971/Kerala Land 
Reforms Act. 1963 : 
A 
B 
Ss. 3(2), 3(3), 8, 8A/s. 82:-Agricu/tura/ Land-Private Forest-
C 
Claimants, members of 'Kovilakam' claiming land under personal cultiva-
tion-Claim rejected by Tribunal but allowed by High Court-High Court's 
power to reappreciate evidence-Held, High Court in deciding appeal under 
s.BA has gl't very wide powers-Competent to adjudicate all questions of fact 
and law-Can re-appraise and re-evaluate evidence-Findings and con-
clusions anived at by High Court wa"anted and justified-Provisions of D 
Chapte1 III and s. 82 of Land Reforms Act applicable to allocation of land 
exempted under s.3(3) of Vesting Act. 
The claimant-respondents, members of 'Nilambur Kovilakaoi' filed 
a petition under section 8 of the Kera la Private Fores ts (Vesting and E 
Assignment) Act, 1973 before the Forest Tribunal, claiming that the land 
in dispute, admeasuring 60 acres, did not vest in the Government under 
Section 3 of the Act, and they were entitled to retain the same. The clailn 
was dismissed. On appeal, the High Court reversed the order of the 
Tribunal holding that the"thavazhi' (family) claimants consisted of at least 
10 members at the relevant time and they were entitled to retain the land 
in dispute in terms of section 3(2) of the Act, as it formed part of the 
private forest held by them and under their personal cultivation at the time 
of coming into force of the Act, i.e. on 10.5.1971. Aggrieved, the State of 
Government and the Custodian of vested forests filed the appeal by special 
leave. 
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the High Court, 
while deciding the appeal under section 8-A of the Act, erred in re-ap-
preciating the evidence and holding that the land in dispute formed part 
F 
G 
of the private forest held by the claimants and under their personal 
cultivation at the relevant time; there was no legal material to establish H 
679 
680 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A that the claimants' family consisted uf the least 10 members so as to retain 
the land in dispute u/s. 3(2) of the Act; and that in view of the decision of 
this Court regarding total extent of land to be held by 'Nilambur 
Kovilakam' under s.3(3) of the Act, appropriate safeguard should be made 
in the matter of total area allocable to the 'Kovilakam'. 
B 
c 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1 In deciding the appeal under section SA of the Kerala 
Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act 1973, the High Court has 
got very wide powers. It is not hedged in by any limitation. When the matter 
comes up before the High Court, it is the correctness and propriety of the 
order under appeal which arises for consideration. 1be High Court can 
independently consider the evidence and satisfy itself whether the findings 
and conclusions arrived at by the Forest Tribunal are proper. The High 
Court is competent to adjudicate all questions of fact and law and record 
D its findings. It can reappraise and re-evaluate the evilllence and arrive at 
its own findings and conclnsions. The findings and conclusions arrived at 
by the High Court are warranted and justified. [684-G-H; 685-A-B] 
1.2 On the basis of the material on record, tl1e High Court was 
justified in holding that the lands in dispnte formed part of the private 
E forest held by the claimants and under tl1eir personal cultivation at the 
time of coming into force of the act, namely, on 10.5.1!171. [685-D-E] 
2. In view of the genealogy chart of the family and registered copy of 
Karar, execnted in the claimants 'thavazhi' (family), the High Court was 
F 
right in holding that on 10.5.71, the 'thavazhi' had atleacst 10 members and 
at the relevant time, the 'thavazhi' could retain a minimum 75 acres. Since 
the land in dispute was only about 60 acres in extent,. the claimants are 
entitled to retain the land in terms of section 3(2) of the Act. [685-F-G] 
3. The claimants are entitled to exemption from vesting under s.3(3) 
G of the Act. However, having regard to the area allocabl<, to members of the 
'Kovilakam' and the ceiling area applicable to each claimant nnder s.82 of 
the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, each claimant would make an ap-
propriate application in this regard, and the appropriate authority wonld 
pass consequential orders in accordance wi

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