V. PARUKUTTY MANNADISSIAR & ANR. versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 37 · Decided: 05-09-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

V. PARUKUTIY MANNADISSIAR & ANR. 
v. 
A 
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.] 
B 
Kera/a Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971: Sec-
tions 2(f), 3(2)-Vesting of private forests-Decision of Tribunal-
Whether Government could alter by administrative order. 
The High Court, in an appeal; against a decision of the Forest 
Tribnnal, under the provisions of the Kerala Forests (Vesting & Assign-
ment) Act, 1971, held that 92 acres of forest land were to be given back 
to the appellants. Accordingly, the Forest Department returned certain 
lands. Later on they realised that the lands constituted thick forests and 
had valuab.le trees thereon and refused the timber transit permits 
applied for by the appellants. 
. ~ 
Aggrieved against the decision, the appellants approached the High 
c 
D 
Court by way of a Writ Petition. The High Court held that the appel-
lants were not entitled to any relief with regard to rosewood and other 
trees cut from the lands that did not form part of the land ordered to be 
restored to them. The High Court .directed the Forest Department to 
E 
consider the application of the appellants and pass appropriate orders 
after giving an opportunity to the appellants to put forward their 
contentions. 
This appeal, by special leave,, is against the said order of the High 
Court. 
F 
Allowing the appeal in part, 
HELD: 1.1 The appellants are entitled to return of 92 acres of 
land and not 80 acres. This is on the ground that the direction of the 
High Court in the first appeal became final and in terms of such direc-
G 
tion 92 acres were to go back to the appellants. Government had no 
· authority to alter the decision by an administrative order as has been 
done in this case. l41DJ 
1.2 There is no dispute that 56.31 acres have been restored to the 
appellants.· By the affidavit of 24th June, 1989, 23.69 acres have _been 
H 
37 
38 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
-
-
-
A offered to be restored from three survey numbers indicated therein. 
With the restoration of 23 .69 acres the appellants would have got back 
80 .acres of land. There would still be 12 acres to be returned to the 
appellants. The respondents shall have a direction to trace these 12 
acres in the locality and make over vacant possession to the appellants 
B 
thereof within four months. [ 4 lE] . 
. -
1.3 In case 23.69 acres or any part thereof as indicated in the 
affidavit cannot be delivered possession and the balance 12 acres are not 
identified and possesion thereof cannot be .delivered, the appellants 
shall be entitled to compensation in respect of the shortfall out of 35.69 
acres in all which remain to be delivered and compensation for such 
C shortfall shall be determined as if it were acquisition under the provi-
sions of the Land Acquisition Act, the date of the preliminary notifica-
tion being deemed to be the date of judgment of the Division Bench in 
MFA 401/78. The directions indicated above shaU be worked out by the 
respondents within a total period of six months. [41F-G] 
D 
2. The High Court called upon the respondents to consider the 
E 
F 
appellants' plea for timber. transit permits in respect of trees cut from 
certain other lands. There is no material on record as to whether that 
has been complied with. In case the respondents have not done the same 
yet, they are directed to com.Ply with the order of the High Court within 
three months. ·[41H; 42A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
3694-3695 of 1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.1987 of the Kerala 
High Court in O.P. Nos. 4932 of 1983 and 1091of1982. 
T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer and E.M.S. Anam for the· Appel-
lants. 
P.S. Poti and P.K. Pillai for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATH MISRA, J. Special leave granted. We have 
heard learned counsel for the parties. 
In disposing of the appeal against a decision of the Forest 
_ ,, 
H Tribunal under the provisions of the Kerala Priva_te Forests (Vesting & 
I 
• 
V.P. MANNADJSSIAR v. STATE OF KERALA (MISRA, J.( 
39 
Assignment) Act, 1971, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in 
MFA No. 401/78 disposed of on 14th of July, 1980, directed: 
"It follows that out of 102 acres 25 acres over which teak 
was planted in 1967 and eucalyptus was planted in 1955 will 
be private forest coming within the Private Forests (Vest-
ing & Assignment) Act. But since this area is under the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.