LexSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR. versus M/S. POPULAR ESTATES AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ST A TE OF KERALA AND ANR. A v. MIS. POPULAR ESTA TES AND ANR. NOVEMBER 4, 2004 [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] B Kera/a Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, J97J-Section 3-Private forest-Vesting in State on the date of coming into force of the Act -Exemption from vesting claimed by landowner-Land declared to be falling . C under exempted category by Taluk Land Board under J970 Rules-In first round of litigation Forest Tribunal deciding JOO hectares land as vestedforest- Notification by Custodian and Conservator of Vested Forests demarcating 324 hectares of land as vested forest-Jurisdiction to issue Notificµtion challenged-Jn second round of litigation Evidence in support of its claim produced by the landowner, but not considered by Tribunal-The jurisdiction D upheld by the Tribunal as well as High Court-High Court held the Notification valid only to the extent of J 00 hectares and invalid vis-a-vis the rest of the land on the ground that the determination·by Taluk Board would operate as res judicata-On appeal, held: Jurisdiction to issue Notification justified- Declaration by Taluk Board would not aper.ate as res judicata because the E same was subjudice and because the question whether the land was private forest was not in issue before the Board-The order of the Board may be binding only on Authorities under Land Reforms Act-For the Authorities under the Forest Act, it would only operate as a piece of evidence-Claim of the Land owner since not decided on merits of the evidence produced, hence direction to Tribunal to decide the matter on merit-Kera/a Land Reforms F Act, J963-Section 8J and 85(9A)-Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rule~, 1970-Rule JO-Code of Civil Procedure, J908-Section 11. Respondents were the owners of 1534.40 acres of land. Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 came into force w.e.f. 10.5.1971 providing all private forests to vest in State Government. The G Act was upheld by Supreme Court. Thereafter forest Authorities attempted to take possession of large areas as private forests. Respondents moved applications before Forests Tribunal u/s 8 of the Act seeking declaration that no part of the estate comprising 1534.40 acres was liable 943 H 944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A to vest in the State as it was exempted from vesting under the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal declared 100 hectares (156 acres) ofland as vested forest land and did not grant any declaration with regard to the rest of the land and dismissed the applications. When forest Authorities attempted to take possession of the land, 1·espondent filed suits. During pendency of the suits, Custodian and Conservator of Vested Forests issued a B Notification u/s 6 of the Act demarcating 324 hectares land as vested forests under the Act. Applications challenging the Notification were dismissed by Forests Tribunal holding that by .its earlier order it had only dealt with 100 hectares (156 acres) of the land and with regard to the rest of the land the State Government had power to issue a fresh Notification. C The order of Tribunal was challenged in appeal before High Court. Writ Petition challenging the Notification was also filed. Taluk Land Board under Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970 in respect of the land in dispute had declared that the same fell under exempted category. Proceedings u/s 85(9A) of Kerala Land Reforms Act, D 1~63 had been initiated for reopening the final order by a notice. The notice was challenged by the respondents by Revision Petition before High. Court wherein further proceedings had been stayed. Allowing 'the appeal and the Writ Petition and setting aside order E of the Tribunal, High Court held that Notification was valid only in respect of 100 hectares (156 acres) of land and invalid for rest of the land and that determination by Taluk Land Board would operate as res judicata. In appeal to this Court appellant-State contended that since the determination by Taluk Land Board is subjudice before High Court, the F same could not operate as res judicata. Respondent contended that order of High Court was justified in view of admission on the part of the State Government that only 155.90 acres was forest. G Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: t.t. The Taluk Land Board's determination could not operate as res judicata for two reasons. In the first place, the decision of the Taluk La
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.