LexSTATE OF KERALA AND ORS. versus M.N. SANKARA NARAYANAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. v. M.N. SANKARA NARAYANAN AND ORS. AUGUST 7, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Kera/a Prcse1vatio11 of Trees Act, 1986/Kerala P1ivate Forests (Vesting a11d Assig11me11t) Act, 1971: A B Ss.2( e) 512(!), 8-Prese1vatio11 of forests a11d prohibitio11 011 cutti11g of C trees-By operatio11 of Judgme11t of this Cowt 60 acres of la11d was declared with the respo11de11ts as 1101 a p1ivate forest a11d said to have bee11 used as cardamom pla11tatio11-Howevcr in fact there exists forest growth with value- ab/c trees i11 the said 60 acres of land-Notification was published prohibiting the respondents from felling the trees-Held, competent authmity would give pennission to respondents to fell such of trees which are not refeJTed to in D s.2( e) so as to enable him to cultivate cardamom plantation or any other plantation OJJerations pennissib/e under the law-17iis direction would ensue conzpliance of the Act and al the sanie tbne the right given to the respondents to enjoy 60 acres of land would be sustained-State Govemment would issue modified notification in tenns of s.5. E M.N. Sankaranarayanan v. State of Kera/a and Anr., AIR (1987) SC 47, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10656 of ·~ F From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.94 of the Kerala High Court in W.A. No. 1505 of 1992. M.T. George for the Appellants. A. Sudhi Vasudevan, M.P. Vinod and G. Prakash for the Respon- dents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. 363 G H 364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A We have heard learned counsel on both sides. B c D E The case has a chequered history which needs no elaboration. Suffice it to state that under the Madras Private Forests Preservation Act, private forests were preserved. The Legislature of the Kerala passed Kerala Private Forests (Vesting the Assignment) Act 26 of 1971 (for short, the 'Vesting Act') which came into force w.e.f. May 10, 1971. The respondent claimed 3,000 acres to be not a private forest. The Tribunal declared that entire 3,000 acres not a private forest. When an appeal came to be filed by the appellant, the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in MFA No. 152/1977 by judgment dated September 19,1980 had accepted the report submitted by three Commissioner, namely, two advocates, P.C. Chacko and N. Nandkumara Menon and John M. John, Assistant Director, Cardamom Board. The report dated February 26, 1979 Ex. X-4 declared as under : "In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the Forest Tribunal is set aside and we declare that plots 2 and 3 as shown In Ext.X-5 plan having an area of 25 acres in alone not a private forest within the meaning of that expression as defined in Act 26 of 1971. If there is a case for any recovery steps, it is open to the appellant lo enforce the bond, if any, filed by the respondent in obedience to the order dated 19.4.1977 in 1A 125/1977 of the Tribunal (Page 23 begins). In the nature of this case the respondent shall pay the costs of the appellants .. Thereunder, 25 acres marked in the said area were declared to be F not a private forest since ca~damom operations were being carried on in that area. When the respondents carried the matter in appeal to this Court, this Court in M.N. Sa11kara11arayanan v. State of Kera/a & Anr., AIR 1987 SC 47 based upon the admission made by the State in their counter affidavit declared that 60 acres out of 3000 acres would be the area in which the G respondent was cultivating cardamom plantations and held that : "We, therefore, find that the appellant is entitled to a declaration in respect of an extent of 60 acres of land. At this distance of time no useful purpose may be served by amending the case for the purpose of identifying the 60 acres of land. After consulting the H learned counsel for the parties we have arrived at the conclusion STATEv. M.N.SANKARANARAYANAN 365 that the appellant is entitled to an area of 60 acres of his choice A out of 3000 acres claimed by him. The declaration in respect of 60 acres will be in substitution of and not in addition to the declaration granted by the High Court in respect of 259 acres. Subject to this slight modification the appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances \vithout costs. 11 It was accordingly held that the respondent is entitled to a declara- tion in respect of an extent of 60 acres of land; he was give
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.