VILLAGE OFFICER AND OTHERS versus CHUNAYAMAKKAL JOSEPH AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 977 · Decided: 19-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
977
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 977
977
VILLAGE OFFICER AND OTHERS
v.
CHUNAYAMAKKAL JOSEPH AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 207 of 2022)
JANUARY 19, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 –
ss. 2(f), 3, 4, 8 & 13 – Kerala Private Forest (Tribunal) Rules, 1972
– r.2A – Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961– s.5 – Area/land in question
was notified as vested Forest u/s. 4 of 1971 Act –Land Tribunal
issued Purchase Certificates in favour of respondents which was
later on cancelled – In writ Petition before High Court, respondents
submitted that when they are in possession of the properties in
question, the revenue authorities are obliged and bound to accept
the basic tax, leviable under the 1961 Act –Whether the High Court
erred in issuing the writ of mandamus directing the appellants to
accept the basic tax from respondents – Held: Respondent nos. 1 &
2 cannot claim any right over the disputed lands in question
considering the notification issued under Rule 2A declaring the
lands in question as vested forest land and no jenmam rights and/
or purchase certificates in favour of the respondents with respect
to the lands in question – Respondents cannot be said to be the
owner and/or cannot be said to be having a valid title in their favour
– Therefore, there is no question of any acceptance of basic tax
from respondents, leviable under the 1961 Act – High Court did not
properly appreciate the mala fide intention on the part of respondents
to pray for such a writ and indirectly establishing their right, title
and ownership over the disputed lands in question which, as such,
is declared as a vested forest land – Impugned judgment and order
set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The respondents filed writ petition before the
High Court for a writ of mandamus directing the revenue
authorities and more particularly the Village Officer to accept
the basic tax leviable under section 5 of the 1961 Act with respect
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
978
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
to the lands in question. The said writ petition was filed on the
premise that they are the owner and in possession of the disputed
land and jenmam rights and purchase certificates were issued in
their favour and that their possession and ownership have been
admitted by the Divisional Forest Officer in the two counter
affidavits filed before the Tribunal in OA Nos. 13 & 14 of 1986.
The High Court has accepted the same and issued a writ of
mandamus directing the revenue authorities – Village Officer to
accept the basic tax from the respondents. [Para 5.1][985-C-E]
2. However, the High Court has not at all appreciated and/
or considered the fact that as such the jenmam rights and
purchase certificates which were earlier issued in the years 1975
& 1979 in favour of the respondents have been cancelled by the
appropriate authority. The High Court has also not appreciated
the fact that as such a notification has been issued under Rule 2A
of the Kerala Private Forest (Tribunal) Rules, 1972 and the lands
in question have been declared as a “private forest land”, vide
notification issued in the year 1977. The private respondent nos.
1 & 2 filed an application under Section 8 of the 1971 Act
challenging the said notification and vesting of the lands in
question as a private forest land and declaring the same as a
forest land, however, the said application came to be dismissed
by the Forest Tribunal, vide order dated 12.3.1990 and thereafter
there is no challenge to the aforesaid notification including the
land in question as a vested forest land. [Para 5.2][985-F-H; 986-
A]
3. The High Court has also not appreciated that in order
dated 16.4.2002 passed by the Land Tribunal cancelling the order
of assignment of jenmam rights and certificates of purchase, the
Land Tribunal specifically observed that OA applicants failed to
establish tenancy rights claimed by them and the survey plan
clearly shows that the lands in question are covered by the vested
forest land of the government. Thus, as per the Land Tribunal,
respondent nos. 1 & 2 cannot claim any right over the disputed
lands in question. Once the notification issued under Section 2A
of the 1972 Rules declaring the lands in question as vested forest
land stands and as on today there is no jenmam rights and/or
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
979
purchase certificates in favour of the respondents with respect
to the lands in question, respondent nos. 1 & 2 cannot be said to
be 

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