Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971: ss. 3(3) and 8 – On facts, respondent-landowners owned a piece of land with rubber plantation and other trees – Claim of exemption of the said land from its vesting in the State – Entitlement to – Tribunal declared the land as exempted from being vested in the State – High Court set aside the order of the tribunal – In appeal before this Court, matter remitted to the High Court – After remand, the High Court upheld the order passed by the tribunal – On appeal, held: Issue as regards interpretation of s.3(3) and holding of the land and its intended use by the landowner having already decided by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the State cannot raise the same plea again in the second round of litigation after remand – Tribunal rightly based its finding on the documentary evidence filed by the respondents keeping in view the requirements of s.3(3), that the title was derived by the respondents in relation to the land prior to the appointed day and that the land was found in actual use by the respondents for their personal cultivation even prior to the appointed day – Thus, the order by High Court after remand upheld.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The question as to what is true interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act and especially Section 3(3) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 and the other question regarding holding of the land and its intended use by the respondents stand already decided by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. The State cannot, therefore, be allowed to raise the same plea again in the second round of litigation after remand. This Court in explained the object and purpose of Section 3(3) of the Act and then holding that such provision has to be construed liberally examined the facts of this very case and set aside the order of the High Court in the earlier round of litigation. The remand of the case to the High Court was to examine the issue in the light of interpretation made by this Court. [Para 22] [693-E-G]
1.2 The tribunal recorded findings of fact as set out while allowing the respondents’ application filed u/s. 8 and the same were not interfered with by the High Court. All the findings are otherwise found to be based on documentary evidence filed by the respondents and the same were properly appreciated by the tribunal keeping in view the requirements of sub-section (3) of Section 3, that the title was derived by the respondents in relation to the land in question prior to the appointed day and the land was found in actual use by the respondents for their personal cultivation even prior to the appointed day. [Paras 23-24] [693G-H; 694-A-B]
1.3 In the light of these two findings recorded by the Tribunal on facts and upheld by the High Court in the impugned order after remand, which were not found perverse or against any evidence or illegal in any way, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order. [Para 25] [694-C]S
Joseph & Anr. vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (2007) 10 SCC 414 : [2007] 6 SCR 347 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.