M/S PAMPRA COFFEE PLANTATIONS PAMPRA ESTATE v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 7336 of 2012 (N) ---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER:** ## **----------** **M/S.PAMPRA COFFEE PLANTATIONS PAMPRA ESTATE, PAMPRA P.O., WAYANAD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER ISSAC PETER.** **BY ADVS.SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SR.) SRI.PAUL JACOB (P)** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **--------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.** **2. THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS OLAVAKODE CIRCLE, OLAVAKODE, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 002.** **3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,** **SOUTH WAYANAD DIVISION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN-673 121.** **BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA K. BY SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY, SPL. GOVT. PLEADER FOR FORE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-11-2017 ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.22787 OF 2014, THE COURT ON 11-12-2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 7336 of 2012 (N)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** **---------------------** |**EXT.P1**|**-**|**COPY OF CLEAR FELLING PERMIT DATED 25.07.1965**| |---|---|---| |||**ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE.**| |**EXT.P2**|**-**|**COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25.04.1972 FOR**| |||**MODIFICATION OF THE COFFEE REGISTRATION**| |||**CERTIFICATE.**| |**EXT.P3**|**-**|**COPY OF THE REVISED REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE**| |||**NO.228/75 DATED 02.12.1975.**| |**EXT.P4**|**-**|**COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 01.05.1975.**| |**EXT.P5**|**-**|**COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 18.12.1975 OF THE**| |||**TAHSILDAR SOUTH WAYANAD.**| |**EXT.P6**|**-**|**COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.02.1977**| |||**ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.**| |**EXT.P7**|**-**|**COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 26.70.1993 OF THE**| |||**TALUK LAND BOARD.**| |**EXT.P8**|**-**|**COPY OF THE PLAN OF THE PAMPRA COFFEE ESTATE**| |||**SEPARATELY SHOWING THE 88.28 ACRES.**| |**EXT.P9**|**-**|**COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 04.05.2001 ISSUED BY**| |||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P10**|**-**|**COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 18.03.2005 IN**| |||**W.P.(C) NO.37774/2004.**| |**EXT.P11**|**-**|**COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20.06.2012 IN WP(C)**| |||**NO.37774/2004 OF THE HON'BLE COURT.**| |**EXT.P11(A)**|**-**|**COPY OF LETTER NO.59580/N4/75/RD DATED 08.12.1975**| |||**ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE DISTRICT**| |||**COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE.**| |**EXT.P12**|**-**|**COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.5063356 DATED**| |||**22.12.2004 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.**| |**EXT.P12(A)**|**-**|**COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.87371 DATED 24.04.2014**| |||**ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.**| |**EXT.12(B)**|**-**|**COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT 87372 DATED 24.04.2014**| |||**ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.**| |**EXT.P13**|**-**|**COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2014 IN WP(C)**| |||**NO.15868 OF 2014 OF THIS COURT.**| |**EXT.P14**|**-**|**COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 15.06.2017.**| **[CONTD...]** **WP(C).No. 7336 of 2012 (N)** **2** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-** |**RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-**|**RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-**|**RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-**|| |---|---|---|---| |**---------------------**|||| |**EXT.R3(A)**|**-**|**COPY OF SALE DEED NO.3009/75.**|| |**EXT.R3(B)**|**-**|**COPIES OF FIELD MEASUREMENT BOOK PREPARED BY THE**|| |||**SURVEY DEPARTMENT DURING RESURVEY.**|| |**EXT.R3(C)**|**-**|**COPIES OF BASIC TAX REGISTER**|**PREPARED BY SURVEY**| |||**DEPARTMENT.**|| ||||**//TRUE COPY//**| ||||**P.A. TO JUDGE**| **sp** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]** **---------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of December, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** Both the writ petitions challenge the vesting of 87.4214 Hectares of private forest under the Kerala Private Forest [Vesting & Assignment] Act 1971 [for brevity, the Vesting Act]. The writ petition of 2012 is said to have been filed when there were attempts by the forest officials to treat 88 Acres of coffee plantation as private forest. There was an interim order dated 23.03.2012 directing _status quo_ to be maintained. Later, when the notification was issued under the Vesting Act, the writ petition of 2017 was filed challenging the said notification. WP(C) No.7336 of 2012 has been rendered infructuous. However the matter was heard **2** _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ comprehensively and judgment reserved in both writ petitions. The documents are referred from the later writ petition unless otherwise specified. 2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession of an extent of 825.38 Acres of property purchased in 1975. An extent of 737.38 Acres was purchased by Sale Deed No.3009/1975 and the balance 88 Acres was transferred on the strength of an agreement for sale. The petitioner purchased an additional extent of 6.40 Hectares and now is in possession of a total of 840.81 Acres. The tax receipts are produced as Ext.P1 and the Possession Certificates relating to 334.3380 Hectares are produced as Ext.P1(a). The petitioner purchased the property from M/s.Bombay Burma Trading Corporation Ltd. [BBTC], who had planted 825.38 Acres with coffee and 900 Acres with teak. On the Vesting Act coming into force the Government **3** _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ measured the properties and took over 900 Acres of teak plantation along with other private forest. 3. The property, which was in the possession of the petitioner and planted with coffee was excluded as not having vested, after verification and demarcation. The petitioners property being a plantation was excluded from vesting even as per the Vesting Act. A sketch of the properties in the possession of the petitioner is produced as Ext.P1(b); the land around which has vested in the Government and demarcated. Subsequently in the year 2017 after more than four and a half decades from the Vesting Act, the forest authorities were attempting to take over the plantation in the possession of the petitioners, when the writ petition of 2012 was filed. The notification issued later after measurement was completed, is challenged in the 2017 writ petition. **4** _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the entire properties, which were in the possession of the BBTC was commonly known as 'Pambra Estate'. The predecessorin-interest of the petitioner had sought for clear felling of 140 Acres under the Madras Preservation of Forest Act before the District Collector, Kozhikkode, which was allowed as per Ext.P2 dated 25.07.1965. Condition NO.9 of the said document specifically shows that the area clear felled should be planted with silver oak and coffee before the end of July, 1966. The same was carried out. An application was filed before the District Collector, Kozhikkode by Ext.P3 dated 25.04.1972 pointing out an additional 88.28 Acres having been planted with robesta coffee. The total acreage of coffee cultivation stood enhanced to 689.51 Acres. The Certificate of Coffee Registration was sought _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ **5** to be amended accordingly. Ext.P4 dated 16.07.1975 is a proceeding of the District Collector affirming the fact of coffee plantation and the acerage under such plantation. 5. Having purchased the property, the petitioner applied for registration as per Ext.P4(a), which was granted as per Ext.P4(b) dated 02.12.1975 by the District Collector, Kozhikkode. The Taluk Land Board, by Ext.P5, granted exemption from the ceiling area on the ground of 825.38 being a coffee plantation. The extent of 88.28 Acres, put in possession of the petitioner by an agreement, after paying entire consideration, was not excluded, since there was a pending litigation. Later, by Ext.P6 a clarification was sought by the Government from the District Collector as to the lands being continued as coffee plantation and so registered. Ext.P6(a) is the report of the **6** _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ Tahsildar, which indicates that the entire area of 689.51 Acres is planted with coffee and is in the yielding stage. The Government by Ext.P5 exempted the 88 Acres of property in the possession of the petitioner. The balance properties in the possession of the petitioner is also entitled to exemption; being put to use for ancillary purposes of the plantation. 6. On 08.07.1977 a notification was issued by the 2[nd] respondent detailing the properties vested in the Government under the Vesting Act; evidenced by Exhibit P8. It indicates vesting of around 897.92 Hectares from the Pambra Estate. Admittedly, the properties now notified and in the possession of the petitioners were not notified at that stage. Later by Exhibit P9 dated 04.05.2001 a further notification was issued purportedly to take in the lands omitted to be notified earlier. The **7** _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ petitioner on being informed that Sl. No.39 in Ext.P9 of 24.6245 Hectares may possibly be relating to the petitioner's property; WP(C) No.37774 of 2004 was filed challenging the notification. The Forest Department filed a counter affidavit that Sl.No.39 does not relate to the petitioner's property and is owned by one Satyavardhan. The writ petition hence was withdrawn as is seen from Ext.P10. The present writ petitions were necessitated only, when again, the already exempted properties were measured for demarcation and notified as having vested. There can be no such unending exercise carried on based on an enactment passed four and a half decades back, especially when the provisions mandate promptitude in so far as the measurement, demarcation and notification; is the argument. 7. The expression “as soon as may be” cannot be _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ **8** given an extended application for all time permitting the State to take over valuable property at any time; which would run foul of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. **General Insurance Council v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2007) 12 SCC 354]** is relied on to urge that 'as soon as' means to act with promptitude. **Santhoshkumar Shivgonda Patil v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale [(2009) 9 SCC 352]** found that even if there is no time provided in the statute for exercise of a power, it does not mean that such power can be exercised at any time. **Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemical Ltd. [(2007) 8 SCC 705]** interpreted the words “at any time” as not conferring the statutory authority with an unfettered discretion to exercise the power whenever it pleases. **Jojy Jacob v. State of Kerala [2011 (1) KLT 79]** it is conceded, is against the **9** _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ petitioner, but according to the petitioner is not good law by virtue of the dictum laid down in **Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.v. State of Maharashtra [2014 KHC 4065].** 8. The learned Senior Counsel submits that Section 3 vests private forests in the Government subject to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3). The definition of property as contained in Section 2(f) specifically excluded lands, which are used principally for the cultivation of teak, coffee etc. and the lands used for any purpose ancillary to the plantation and for preparation of the produce for the market. Subsection 2 also exempted so much extent of land comprised in private forests held by an owner for his personal cultivation, as is within the limit applicable to him under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. Section 4 deems private forests vested **10** _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ under Section 3(1) to be reserved forest under The Kerala Forest Act, 1961. As per Section 6, the demarcation of boundaries have to be done as soon as may be after the appointed date. 9. In the case of the petitioner, it is established that the entire lands possessed by them are coffee plantations, which also had such registration as issued from the District Collector. The demarcation of the boundaries as is provided under sub-section 6 was done as stipulated in Section 6 and Exts.P8 & P9 notifications brought out. Ext.P8 demarcated the boundaries of 897.92 Hectares within Pambra Estate as vested forest and Ext.P9 demarcated a further 24.6245 Hectares within the Pambra Estate. The explanatory note to Ext.P9 specifically spoke of areas omitted to be published in the area. There is no scope for any further notification as the demarcation of boundaries under _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ **11** Section 6 is deemed to have been concluded by Exts.P8 & P9. Whatever vested with the Government, on the coming into force of the Act, stood demarcated and was taken over by the Government deeming it to be reserved forest and there is no scope for further demarcation or notification. 10. The learned Special Government Pleader raises a preliminary objection of maintainability. It is submitted that there is a Tribunal constituted, under the Act, to resolve the disputes arising under the Vesting Act. The dispute raised by the petitioner is purely on facts, as to there being a plantation covering the entire extent of property now said to be in possession of the petitioner. The learned Special Government Pleader relies on **State of Kerala v. Popular Estates [2004 (12 SCC 434]** and **State of Kerala v. A. George Ninan and Others [2014 KHC 3674]** to bring home the point. _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ **12** It is also contended that vesting and notification pursuant to demarcation are totally distinct and different. The vesting occurs automatically _“on and from”_ the appointed day and the lack of a notification or the delay in making such notification would not detract from the vesting that has already been occasioned. **Range Officer v. Aishumma [1978 KHC 162]** and **Ranga Sesha Hills (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1991 KHC 339]** are relied on. It is also submitted that **Jojy Jacob,** which was cited by the petitioner is squarely applicable here and the facts are almost similar. When there was delay of 30 years in notifying, despite that, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the petitioner to approach the Tribunal. The decision in **Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.** [supra] is clearly distinguishable on facts, submits the learned Special Government Pleader. _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ **13** 11. In addition to the preliminary objection on maintainability, it is submitted that the petitioner is in possession of 817.2451 Acres of land as Pambra Estates. Out of which, only 601.230 Acres are under coffee plantation. The petitioner hence was in illegal possession of 216.0151 Acres [87.4214 Hectares], which is an encroachment into the vested forest. Though there was demarcation conducted earlier, necessity arose for detailed verification of the documents, with reference to the revenue records to proceed further with the survey and demarcation. Whatever was undoubtedly found to be private forest was notified earlier and the balance portions are now being notified on detailed verification carried out of the Revenue Records. It is also submitted that there is no title deed produced to substantiate the claim with respect to 88.28 Acres. The payment of tax or the _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ **14** coffee registration would not and cannot substitute the need for clear title over the properties. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed, is the contention. 12. **Aishumma** was a case in which there was a crime registered for illegal felling of trees within the reserve forest. The Lower Court acquitted the accused on the ground that there was no notification under the Vesting Act. Though the acquittal was confirmed on other grounds, the finding of the Lower Court with respect to the vesting was set aside holding that all private forests, vested in the Government by virtue of the Vesting Act, is deemed to be reserved forest constituted under the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. 13. **Ranga Sesha Hills** delineated the scheme of the Act in paragraph 3, which is extracted hereunder: _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ **15** “3. It is necessary to understand the scheme of the Act. The Act is to provide for vesting in the Government of private forests in the State. “Private forest” is defined in S.2(f) of the Act. “Appointed day” is defined in S. 2(a) of the Act as meaning 10th May, 1971. S. 3 (1) is the provision which declares vesting of private forests in the Government. It says, interalia, that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any contract or other document, but subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3), with effect on and from the appointed day, the ownership and possession of all private forests in the State of Kerala Shall by virtue of this Act.stand transferred to and vested in the Government free from all encumbrances, and the right, title and interest of the owner or any other person in any private forest shall . stand extinguished. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of S. 3 provide for certain exemptions, that is, lands which attract the provisions of subsection (2) and (3) are exempted from vesting and shall not be treated as having vested in the Government under sub-section (1). Going by the above provision in S. 3(1) read in the light of the definition of “appointed day” in S. 2(a), what is clear is that on the appointed day, namely, 10th May 1971 all private forests, subject to exceptions contemplated in sub-sections (2) and (3), shall vest in the State”. 14. The scheme of the Act as noticed by the Division Bench supports the stand of the Government in so far as the vesting occurring without anything _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ **16** more than the force of the enactment. There is of course necessity for expeditious demarcation; but the question is if it is delayed would the delay alone create a right on the person having possession. Then the effect as intended by the statute would be frustrated. This would make the vesting dependent on the demarcation; which would defeat the statutory intention. 15. **Jojy Jacob** was in almost identical circumstances. Based on the Vesting Act a notification was published in the year 2001 almost 30 years from the appointed date. Relying on **Ranga Sesha Hills** and **Popular Estates** , the parties were relegated to the Tribunal. It was found that the vesting is not dependent upon the demarcation of the boundaries or issuance of notification. On the question of delay, the Court unequivocally held that official inadvertence or negligence or mistake _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ **17** in demarcation of boundaries and publication of notification cannot invalidate the automatic vesting under Section 3 of the Vesting Act. 16. In this context, the distinction pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader in **Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.** [supra] is also relevant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a batch of 28 appeals, and the facts in the appeal of **Godrej** was the basis of the decision **. Godrej** acquired certain lands in 1948 from the successorsin-interest of a person, who was granted perpetual lease by the Government of Bombay. The land was described in the lease document as 'waste land' and the purpose of the lease was also to cultivate it. The action by the Government to take back the lands for reason of it being not cultivated before 1948 resulted in a suit. A consent decree was passed, in which only a portion of the lands were allowed to _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ **18** be taken over, as not having been cultivated. **Godrej** thereafter was granted permission on various dates by the Municipal Corporation to construct residential buildings on the disputed land. The lands were also exempted under Urban Land [Ceiling and Regulation] Act, 1976 by the State Government. 17. Multi-storied buildings were constructed in the disputed land over a period of time on the permission issued by the Municipal Corporation. It was later to this, that a notice under the Forest Act was issued in respect of the disputed land, which also was not properly served on Godrej. The principle of c _aveat emptor_ applicable in the normal circumstances was held to be not applicable, when a citizen is effectively led up the garden path for several decades by the State itself. It was also observed that it was not a case of stray or few instances of unauthorized construction, but _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ **19** development of land carried on with the active consent of the State and its authorities. The large scale activity of construction was carried on in full view of the authorities of the State and there was no attempt to stop the massive and prolonged constructions, which were later alleged to be in breach of law. The silence of the State for long years persuaded the Hon'ble Supreme Court to find that there were no patent illegalities in the constructions in the disputed land. The Hon'ble Supreme Court not only noticed the complete inaction of the State, but termed it an active consent. 18. Looking at the above facts; here, there is a clear distinction and it can not be said that there were any other activities carried on in the property other than the alleged plantation. There cannot also be alleged any active connivance of the _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ **20** authorities of the State. If at all it can only be lethargy; which alone cannot result in the petitioners possession being absolved of the statutory rigor. 19. The petitioners are said to have been in possession of the lands in which they were carrying on plantation and the balance lands were used for ancillary purposes. On the vesting, immediately thereafter the Forest Department had taken steps to survey and demarcate the properties. Thereafter in 2001 another portion of the properties coming to around 24.6245 Hectares was notified [Ext.P9]. Later, now in 2017 another 87.4214 Hectares is also notified, which is said to have been done on a comprehensive verification of the Revenue Records and after carrying out survey of the properties and demarcating the boundaries. 20. The case of the petitioner is that the _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ **21** petitioner is exempted under the definition of the Vesting Act, since there was a plantation carried on in the lands; which are even now carried on. The petitioner would have to establish that a plantation was carried on at the time of enforcement of the Act and it has been continued thereafter till date. It may not be proper for this Court to merely set aside the notification on the ground of delay; especially in view of the binding precedent in **Jojy Jacob** ; which I do not find any reason to differ from. 21. **Popular Estates** was a similar claim as to the lands in the possession of the respondents being exempted as cultivable lands. The respondents had moved the Forest Tribunal at the initial stage, wherein a survey for demarcation was attempted at the initiative of the Forest Tribunal. Criticizing the manner in which the survey was conducted, the _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ **22** O.A's were dismissed with the finding that though the claim was with respect to 100 Hectares, the survey seems to have excluded more extents, which had actually been vested. The Tribunal found fault with the survey conducted but left it at that, since the dispute raised was only on the vesting of 100 Hectares which was found to be vested. A subsequent notification demarcating 324 Hectares of land was challenged before the High Court. A number of proceedings ensued and eventually in a Miscellaneous First Appeal from the order of the Tribunal, this Court held the notification to be valid only in respect of 100 Hectares and directed restoration of possession of the remaining extent of properties. The State filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 22. The High Court in **Popular Estates** ordered restoration of lands, except the 100 Hectares, **23** _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ initially found to have vested, on two grounds. The order of the Taluk Land Board granting exemption under the Kerala land Reforms Act was found to act as _res judicata_ . The second ground was that there was an admission by the Forest authorities before the Tribunal as to only 100 Hectares having vested since that was what was demarcated on survey at the first instance. The Supreme Court found that there was no admission at the first instance, since the Tribunal had merely rejected the claim of the petitioner for continued possession of 100 Hectares and it cannot be said that more lands were not actually vested. 23. The order of the Taluk Land Board was found to be binding only on the authorities under the Land Reforms Act; and could only be used as piece of evidence in a proceeding under the Vesting Act. It was also held that the TLB exempted both _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ **24** plantation and private forests from the ceiling limits and there was no enquiry into which of the categories of exemption the subject lands fell into. This is the specific issue to be considered by the Tribunal constituted under the Vesting Act, on the evidence produced; of actual extents in possession, the plantation being in existence and the ancillary use to which other lands are put to and so on and so forth. 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court too understood the scheme of the Act in the following manner: “...The scheme of the Act is that upon the Act coming into force, all private forests would vest in the State Government. The demarcation of the forests under Section 6 of the Act is merely a consequential act and the vesting is not postponed depending on the said act. If anyone claims that his land had not vested in the State Government, Section 8 of the Act gives remedy of moving the Forest Tribunal with full details. The Forest Tribunal would then adjudicate the dispute and decide as to how much of the land claimed by the applicant was not vested forest. It is only upon such determination that the State would be _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ **25** divested of the vested forest. In the instant case, the burden of establishing that certain disputed land was not vested forest rested squarely upon the respondents before the Forest Tribunal. The respondents would succeed or fail on the merits of their own case of showing that the land fell within the exempted category”. (sic-para 12) 25. The Supreme Court also remanded the matter to the Forest Tribunal for fresh consideration. **Popular Estates** and **Ranga Sesha Hills** was followed by a Division Bench in **A.George Ninan** which reiterated that from the “ _Scheme of the Act it is clear that vesting of private forests in the State was not dependent on any further notification” (sic)._ In the teeth of the plethora of precedents, it will not be proper for this Court; under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to preempt the consideration of the “dispute” which has arisen, by the Tribunal. There is also the question of title, which the petitioner seeks to establish on the basis of the revenue records and the exemption _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ **26** under the Land Reforms Act; which alone cannot be decisive. As has been found in **A.George Ninan** revenue records do not confer title and the entries are only for fiscal purposes; ie: payment of land revenue. 26. The writ petitions, hence, would stand rejected; however, leaving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal constituted under the Vesting Act. The petitioner shall approach the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the possession of the petitioner shall not be interfered with till the Tribunal decides the matter, if the challenge is made before the Tribunal as directed hereinabove. However, the Department is entitled to proceed further with the measurement and also laying of jendas. The Department would ensure that _W.P(C). Nos.7336 of 2012 [N] & 22787 of 2017 [W]_ **27** the jendas are not laid in the same size in which they are ordinarily laid especially since the petitioner is directed to be not dispossessed. The size of the jendas shall be smaller and specific identification mark shall be made in the said jendas, which, the Commissioner appointed by the Tribunal, would be able to identify. The Forest Officials and the District administration shall ensure that no encroachment is made into the property in the possession of the petitioner merely for reason of the laying of jendas, by any person. The observations made in this judgment need not govern the consideration by the Tribunal. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs. Sd/- ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.** //True Copy// P.A. to Judge sp/24/11/17