THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR. versus GOURI & ORS. on 25 September 2018

682

SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2018] 12 S.C.R. 682

[2018] 12 S.C.R.

THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

A

v.

GOURI & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 7694 of 2009)

BSEPTEMBER 25, 2018

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]

Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971:s.3(3) – The land in question was acquired by the respondents priorto the appointed day and was being used for personal cultivationCby respondents – Therefore, respondents-land owners were entitledto exemption of their land from being vested in the State under theAct – Land Acquisition.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

DHELD: 1. The High Court held that the land was acquiredby the respondents (landowners) prior to the appointed day andwas being used for personal cultivation by the respondents-landowners. These findings were recorded on the basis of thecommissioner’s report, who made on the spot inspection of theland in presence of both the parties. No kind of any perversity orEarbitrariness or illegality is noticed in these findings. Thesefindings were rendered in conformity with the law laid down bythis Court in *Joseph case. The High Court, therefore, rightlyheld that the respondents are entitled to claim exemption of theirland in question. [Paras 7, 8] [684-B-C, D]

D

F*Joseph & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2007) 10SCC 414 : [2007] 6 SCR 347 – relied on.

Case Law Reference

[2007] 6 SCR 347relied onPara 8

GCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7694of 2009.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2007 of the High Courtof Kerala at Ernakulam in MFA No. 297 of 2001.

H

K. N. Balgopal, Sr. Adv., G. Prakash, Jishnu M. L., Ms. PriyankaPrakash, Ms. Beena Prakash, Mukundan, Jogy Scaria and Nishe RajenShonker, Advs., for the appellants.

R. Basant, Sr. Adv., Vishnu P. and P. K. Manohar, Advs., for therespondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed by theState against the final judgment and order dated 10.08.2007 passed bythe Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in M.F.A.No.297 of 2001 whereby the High Court allowed the MFA filed by therespondents herein (land owners) and set aside the order of the ForestTribunal.

2. Few facts for the disposal of this appeal need mentionhereinbelow.

3. At the outset, we consider it apposite to mention that this appealwas heard analogously with the Civil Appeal No.9912/2010 because thecontroversy involved in this appeal and in Civil Appeal No.9912/2010was identical in nature. This Court by detailed order passed today hasdismissed Civil Appeal No.9912/2010.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant (State)and on perusal of the record of this case and keeping in view our reasoningcontained in the detailed order passed in Civil Appeal No.9912/2010, wefind no good ground to interfere with the impugned order for the followingreasons.

5. First, so far as the question of interpretation of relevantprovisions of Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) is concerned, this Court has dealtwith the said question in detail in the order passed in Civil Appeal No.9912/2010. It would be applicable to this case also while examining the factsof this case because the case at hand also arises out of the same Act.

6. Second, so far as the issues relating to respondents’ land isconcerned such as - when the respondents acquired the land in question,whether such acquisition by the respondents was prior to the appointedday, i.e., 10.05.1971 or later and, if so, how it was made, whether theacquired land was being used for personal cultivation by the landowners A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(respondents herein) and, if so, since when, all these questions wereexamined by the High Court and the categorical findings were recordedin respondents’ favour by setting aside the findings of the Tribunal.

7. In other words, the High Court held that the land was acquiredby the respondents (landowners) prior to the appointed day and wasBbeing used for personal cultivation by the respondents-landowners. Thesefindings were recorded on the basis of the commissioner’s report, whomade on the spot inspection of the land in presence of both the parties.

8. These findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence.No kind of any perversity or arbitrariness or illegality is noticed in theseCfindings. In other words, these findings satisfy the twin requirements ofSection 3 (3) of the Act and, therefore, entitle the respondents to claimexemption of their land from being vested in the State under the Act. Inour view, these findings are rendered in conformity with the law laiddown by this Court in Joseph & Anr. vs. State of Kerala & Anr.,(2007)10 SCC 414. The High Court, therefore, rightly held that theDrespondents are entitled to claim exemption of their land in question.

9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in thisappeal.

10. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.

EDevika Gujral Appeal dismissed.

F

G

H