STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.versusMOHAMMED BASHEER

                         [2019] 1 S.C.R. 477                              477


                 STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.                                 A
                                  v.
                     MOHAMMED BASHEER
              (Civil Appeal Nos. 10075-10076 of 2014)
                        JANUARY 22, 2019                                  B
       [S. ABDUL NAZEER AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
       Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 – s.72(K) and 102 –
Respondent filed petition in the Forest Tribunal for settlement of
dispute in relation to the land in question inter alia on the ground
                                                                          C
that the land is not a private forest as defined u/s.2(f) of the 1971
Act and it did not vest in the government u/s.3 of the 1971 Act and
that the Land Tribunal issued certificate of purchase in favour of
the respondent, as he was found to be the cultivating tenant in
possession of the said land – Appellant-State contended that the
land vested in the government u/s.3 of the 1971 Act and is under          D
the custody of the Forest Department since then – Petition dismissed –
Challenge by Respondent before High Court, allowed – On appeal,
held: Sub-s.(2) of s.72K of the 1963 Act states that the certificate of
purchase issued by Land Tribunal u/sub-s.(1) shall be conclusive
proof of the assignment to the tenant of the right, title and interest
                                                                          E
of the landlord and the intermediaries, if any – Land Tribunal
initiated suo motu proceedings, after obtaining information that the
cultivating tenant had been in possession – Land Tribunal initiating
proceedings in favour of the cultivating tenant would be considering
the possession of a tenant as on the said date which is far earlier
than the 1971 Act – Possession and title under the certificate of         F
purchase have to relate back to a date prior to the date of vesting
under the 1963 Act, i.e. 01.04.1964 – Therefore, there is no question
of vesting of the land in the Government under the 1971 Act which
came into force subsequent to the date of 1963 Act – Certificate of
purchase was issued by the Land Tribunal, u/sub-s.(1) of s.72K of
                                                                          G
the 1963 Act – No appeal was filed u/s.102 of the 1963 Act
challenging the said certificate either by the Government or any
other person – Thus whatever right, title and interest, the landlord
had in the land, was assigned in favour of the respondent under
the certificate of purchase – Respondent is the owner of the land as
                                                                          H
                                 477
478            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A     he has legal title to hold the said land – Further, land in question is
      exempted from vesting in the State u/sub-s.(2) of s.3 of the 1971 Act
      – Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 – s.2,
      3 – Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1970 –
      Evidence Act, 1872 – s.4.
B           Words & Phrases – ‘own’ – Meaning of – Discussed.
            Dismissing the appeals, the Court
             HELD: 1.1 The Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and
      Assignment) Act, 1971 (KPF Act) has been enacted to provide
      for the vesting in the Government of private forests in the State
C     of Kerala, and for the assignment thereof to agriculturists and
      agricultural labourers for cultivation. Section 3 in this Act
      provides for the vesting of all private forests in the State
      Government free from all encumbrances. But by virtue of sub-
      sections (2) and (3), two categories of lands are exempted or
D     excluded from the application of the provision for vesting. The
      appointed day for the purpose of Section 3 is 10.5.1971, which is
      clear from Section 2(a) of the KPF Act. [Para 9][483-C-D; 484-C-
      D]
            1.2 Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 received the assent of
E     the President on 31.12.1963. Sub-section (1) of Section 72K of
      the Land Reforms Act states that as soon as may be after the
      determination of the purchase price under Section 72F or the
      passing of an order under sub-section (3) of Section 72MM, the
      Land Tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase to the cultivating
      tenant, and thereupon the right, title and interest of the landowner
F     and the intermediaries, if any, in respect of the holding or part
      thereof to which the certificate relates, shall vest in the cultivating
      tenant free from all encumbrances created by the landowner or
      the intermediaries, if any. [Paras 11, 14][484-F-G; 485-E-F]
            1.3 Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the KPF Act provides for
G     the exemption of the private forest from vesting. The appointed
      day for the purpose of Section 3 is 10.5.1971, which is clear from
      Section 2(a) of the KPF Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 states
      that the land comprised in private forest held by an owner under
      his personal cultivation is exempted from vesting, if the ceiling
      limit under the Kerala Land Reforms Act is not exceeded. The
H
        STATE OF KERALA v. MOHAMMED BASHEER                           479


land in question measures about 2 acres. It is not the case of the    A
appellants that the land exceeds the ceiling limit under the Kerala
Land Reforms Act. The expression ‘held by the owner under his
personal cultivation’ contained in sub- section (2) of Section 3 of
the KPF Act is crucial. To bring the land under the exempted
category, the claimant should hold the same as an owner and that
                                                                      B
it should be under his personal cultivation. ‘To own’ is to have
good legal title to hold and possess the property. Black’s Law
Dictionary, Ninth Edition defines the word ‘own’ as ‘to rightfully
have or possess as property; to have legal title to’. When the
enactment enjoins that any evidence would be treated as a
conclusive proof of certain factual situation or legal hypothesis,    C
the law would forbid other evidence to be adduced for the purpose
of contradicting or varying the aforesaid conclusiveness. [Paras
9, 17, 18][484-B-C; 486-H; 487-A-C]
      1.4 In the instant case, the land in question is jenmam land.
The Land Tribunal initiated suo motu proceedings under Rule 5         D
of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules,
1970, after obtaining information that the cultivating tenant had
been in possession, obviously on a report of the revenue
inspector. It is evident from Section 74 of the Land Reforms Act
that any tenancy after 01.04.1964 is prohibited. Any tenancy
created after that date is invalid. The Land Tribunal initiating      E
proceedings under Section 72B in favour of the cultivating tenant
would be considering the possession of a tenant as on the said
date which is far earlier than the KPF Act. Possession and title
under the certificate of purchase have to relate back to a date
prior to the date of vesting under the Land Reforms Act, i.e.         F
01.04.1964. Therefore, there is no question of vesting of the
land in the Government under the KPF Act which has come into
force subsequent to the date of Land Reforms Act. The certificate
of purchase issued under the Land Reforms Act is attributed with
statutory conclusiveness as regards ownership/title under sub-
section (2) of Section 72K. The certificate issued by a competent     G
Land Tribunal after finding that the tenant was in possession of
the property as a cultivating tenant is a conclusive proof of
possession as well. In the instant case, certificate of purchase
has been issued in favour of the respondent after enquiry by the
                                                                      H
480            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A     Land Tribunal. Though the State Government is not a party to
      this order, there was no bar for it to challenge this order under
      Section 102 of the Land Reforms Act. No appeal was filed
      challenging the certificate of purchase either by the Government
      or by any other person. Thus, the certificate of purchase has
      become final. [Paras 19, 20][487-D-H; 488-A]
B
            1.8 The certificate of purchase was issued by the Land
      Tribunal, under sub-section (1) of Section 72K. Sub-section (2)
      of Section 72K of the Land Reforms Act clearly states that the
      certificate of purchase issued under sub-section (1) shall be a
      conclusive proof of the assignment to the tenant of the right, title
C     and interest of the landlord and the intermediaries, if any, over
      the holding or portion thereof to which the assignment relates.
      Thus whatever right, title and interest, the landlord had in the
      land, was assigned in favour of the respondent under the certificate
      of purchase. Therefore, the respondent is the owner of the land
D     as he has legal title to hold the said land. The certificate is also a
      conclusive proof of the fact that the respondent has been in
      possession of the land as a cultivating tenant right from the date
      of vesting of the land under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The
      land in question is exempted from vesting in the State under sub-
      section (2) of Section 3 of the KPF Act. The respondent has
E     established that he is the owner and in possession of the land on
      the appointed day on the basis of certificate of purchase and other
      materials placed on record.[Paras 21, 22][488-B-D, F-G]
            Cheeranthoodika Ahmmedkutty and Anr. v. Parambur
            Mariakutty Umma and Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 417 : [2000]
F           1 SCR 725; Kunjanam Antony (Dead) by LRs. v. State
            of Kerala and Anr. (2003) 3 SCC 221 : [2003] 1 SCR
            967 – referred to.
            Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition – referred to.

G                             Case Law Reference
            [2000] 1 SCR 725                  referred to     Para 18
            [2003] 1 SCR 967                  referred to     Para 22


H
         STATE OF KERALA v. MOHAMMED BASHEER                                   481


     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 10075-                    A
10076 of 2014.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 18.09.2001 and 06.02.2007
of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in M.F.A. No. 160 of 1991
and R.P. No. 572 of 2001.
       Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., C. K. Sasi, Ms. Nayantara Roy, Advs.           B
for the Appellants.
      K. Rajeev, Bijo Mathew Joy, Advs. for the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      S. ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1. The appellant-State of Kerala has                 C
preferred these appeals challenging the legality and correctness of the
judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala in M.F.A. No.160 of 1991
dated 18.09.2001 and the order in RP No.572 of 2001 in M.F.A. No.160
of 1991 dated 06.02.2007.
       2. The respondent herein filed a petition in the Forest Tribunal,       D
Palakkad under Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and
Assignment) Act, 1971 (for short ‘the KPF Act’) for settlement of the
dispute in relation to land measuring about 2 acres bearing R.S No.
1200, Muppenad (now in Vellar mala village) Vythiri Taluk, Wynad district
(for short ‘the land’). In the petition, it was contended that one K.C.
                                                                               E
Kunji Moosa had orally leased the land in favour of the respondent’s
father in the year 1962 and that his father was personally cultivating the
land; after the death of his father, he was personally cultivating the land.
It is not a private forest as defined under Section 2(f) of the KPF Act;
the land was principally planted with coffee long before the appointed
day; thus, it had not vested in the government under Section 3 of the          F
KPF Act; he was issued a certificate of purchase under Section 72K of
the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Land Reforms Act’)
by the Land Tribunal in respect of the said land. It was further contended
that on 25.02.1987, the officials of Social Forestry Department entered
the land and destroyed the coffee plants. In this connection, he had
                                                                               G
complained to the local police and the Village Officer, and that till
25.02.1987, there was no obstruction for cultivating the land from the
forest officials.
       3. The appellants filed a counter-affidavit disputing the claim of
the respondent. It was contended that the land has not been cultivated
                                                                               H
482             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A     and that the certificate of purchase produced by the respondent is not
      binding on them. The respondent was not in possession of the land as
      on the date of vesting or subsequent to that date. The land was vested
      in the government on 10.05.1971 and is under the custody of the Forest
      Department since then. Since there is no evidence to show the
      respondent’s title or possession over the land on the appointed day, his
B
      claim under Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the KPF Act is not sustainable.
             4. The Tribunal, by its order dated 30.06.1990, dismissed the
      petition. The respondent challenged the said order by filing an appeal
      before the High Court. The High Court, by its order dated 18.09.2001,
      allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal. The
C     review petition filed by the appellant-State was dismissed by the High
      Court on 06.02.2007.
              5. Appearing for the appellant-State, Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned
      senior counsel, submits that the local inspection report shows that no
      cultivation whatsoever was seen in the land. The Tribunal found that
D     the land was a private forest at the time of coming into force of the KPF
      Act. The only document produced by the respondent was the certificate
      of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal to prove his title to the property.
      The certificate of purchase is not conclusive as regards the title and
      possession. Forest Department was not a party to the said proceedings
E     and hence, it is not bound by the said certificate. The other documents
      produced by the respondent, such as revenue receipts do not prove title
      of the respondent over the land. It is argued that the respondent has
      failed to establish his possession with valid title to the land as on 10.05.1974
      or thereafter. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in interfering
      with the order of the Tribunal.
F
             6. Shri K. Rajeev, learned counsel for the respondent submits that
      the father of the respondent had taken the property in the year 1962. In
      the year 1968 the land was planted with coffee. The respondent got
      possession of the property from his father. Since then, the respondent
      has been in possession of the land. The Land Tribunal took suo motu
G     proceedings under Rule 5 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and
      Assignment) Rules, 1970 (for short ‘Land Reforms Rules’) for assignment
      of the right, title and interest of the said land to the cultivating tenant in
      possession, under Section 72B of the Land Reforms Act. The Land
      Tribunal, after inquiry, issued certificate of purchase in favour of the
H     respondent, as he was found to be the cultivating tenant in possession of
          STATE OF KERALA v. MOHAMMED BASHEER                                   483
                    [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

the said land. The land is not a private forest and it did not vest in the      A
State in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 3 as it is exempted under
sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the KPF Act. Taking into consideration
the materials placed on record, the High Court has rightly allowed the
writ petition. In the year 1987, the Forest officials illegally destroyed the
coffee cultivation claiming that it is a private Forest vested in the
                                                                                B
Government. He prays for dismissal of the appeals.
     7. We have carefully considered the submission of the learned
counsel made at the Bar.
       8. The KPF Act has been enacted to provide for the vesting in the
Government of private forests in the State of Kerala, and for the               C
assignment thereof to agriculturists and agricultural labourers for
cultivation. Section 3 is an important section in this Act, in the sense that
it provides for the vesting of all private forests in the State Government
free from all encumbrances. But by virtue of sub-sections (2) and (3),
two categories of lands are exempted or excluded from the application
of the provision for vesting. These provisions are as under:                    D

      “3. Private forests to vest in Government:- (1)
      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 sub-sections (2) and (3), with effect on and from
      the appointed day, the ownership and possession of all private            E
      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.
      (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply in respect of        F
      so much extent of land comprised in private forests held by an
      owner under his personal cultivation as is within the ceiling
      limit applicable to him under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963
      (1 of 1964) or any building or structure standing thereon or
      appurtenant thereto.                                                      G
        Explanation: - For the purposes of this sub-section, ‘cultivation’
      includes cultivation of trees or plants of any species.
      (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply in respect of
      so much extent of private forests held by an owner under a valid
                                                                                H
484             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A           registered document of title executed before the appointed day
            and intended for cultivation by him, which together with other
            lands held by him to which Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms
            Act, 1963, is applicable, does not exceed the extent of the ceiling
            area applicable to him under Section 82 of the said Act.”
B                                                           (emphasis supplied)
             9. It is clear from sub-section (2) of Section 3 that the extent of
      land comprised in private forests held by the owner under his personal
      cultivation is exempted from vesting, if the ceiling limit under the Kerala
      Land Reforms Act is not exceeded. Similarly, sub-section (3) of Section
C     3 does not apply in respect of so much of extent of private forests as is
      held by an owner under a valid registered document of title executed
      before the appointed day and intended for cultivation by him, if the ceiling
      limit under Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is not exceeded.
      The appointed day for the purpose of Section 3 is 10.5.1971, which is
      clear from Section 2(a) of the KPF Act.
D
              10. The contention of the respondent is that his father had taken
      the land on lease from K.C. Kunji Moosa in the year 1962, and that his
      father was cultivating seasonal crops in the lands till 1967. He planted
      coffee in the year 1969. In pursuance of suo moto proceedings initiated
      by the Land Tribunal, the jenman right (right of the landlord) was assigned
E     in his favour. In support of his contention, he has produced exhibit A1,
      the certificate of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal under Section
      72K of the Land Reforms Act. The question is whether this document
      establishes the respondent’s ownership and possession over the land as
      on the date of vesting in the government under the KPF Act and whether
F     it is exempted from vesting in the State Government.
              11. The Land Reforms Act received the assent of the President
      on 31.12.1963. Sections 2 to 71, 73 to 82, 84, 99 to 108 and 110 to 132
      came into force on 01.01.1970. The expression “landlord” is defined in
      sub-section (29) of Section 2 as a person under whom a tenant holds
G     and includes a landowner. “Landowner” is defined in sub-section (30)
      of Section 2 as the owner of the land comprised in a holding and includes
      (i) a landholder holding Sree Pandaravaka lands on pattam, otti, jenmam,
      kudijenmam, danam or any other tenure; and (ii) a landholder holding
      Sreepadam lands on Sreepadam-pattam or other favourable tenure. The
      land in question is genmam land which is clear from the records. Sub-
H
         STATE OF KERALA v. MOHAMMED BASHEER                                   485
                   [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

section (32) of Section 2 defines “Land Tribunal” as Land tribunal             A
constituted under Section 99. Sub-section (57) of Section 2 defines a
“tenant” as any person who has paid or agreed to pay rent or other
consideration for his being allowed to possess and to enjoy any land by a
person entitled to lease that land. It is an inclusive definition containing
clauses (a) to (j)
                                                                               B
       12. Section 72 of the Land Reforms Act provides for vesting of
landlord’s rights in Government. As per this provision, all right, title and
interest of the landowners and intermediaries in respect of holdings held
by cultivating tenants (including holders of kudiyiruppus and karaimas)
entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 13 and in respect of which
certificates of purchase under sub-section (2) of Section 59 have not          C
been issued, vest in the Government free from all encumbrances created
by the landowners and intermediaries subsisting thereon on the date to
be notified by the Government in that behalf in the Gazette.
       13. Section 72B of the Land Reforms Act lays down that the
cultivating tenant of any holding or part of a holding, the right, title and   D
interest in respect of which have vested in the Government under Section
72, shall be entitled to assignment of such right, title and interest.
       14. Sub-section (1) of Section 72K states that as soon as may be
after the determination of the purchase price under Section 72F or the
passing of an order under sub-section (3) of Section 72MM, the Land            E
Tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase to the cultivating tenant,
and thereupon the right, title and interest of the landowner and the
intermediaries, if any, in respect of the holding or part thereof to which
the certificate relates, shall vest in the cultivating tenant free from all
encumbrances created by the landowner or the intermediaries, if any.           F
Sub-section (2) of Section 72K states that the certificate of purchase
issued as above, shall be conclusive proof of the assignment to the tenant
of the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries, if
any, over the holding or portion thereof to which the assignment relates.
These two provisions are as under:
                                                                               G
      “72K. Issue of certificate of purchase – (1) As soon as may
      be after the determination of the purchase price under Section
      72F [or the passing of an order under sub-section (3) of Section
      72MM] the Land Tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase to
      the cultivating tenant, and thereupon the right, title and interest of
                                                                               H
486            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A           the landowner and the intermediaries, if any, in respect of the
            holding or part thereof to which the certificate relates, shall vest
            in the cultivating tenant free from all encumbrances created by
            the landowner or the intermediaries, if any.
              Explanation – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared
B           that on the issue of the certificate of purchase, the landowner or
            any intermediary shall have no right in the land comprised in the
            holding, and all his rights including rights, if any, in respect of trees
            reserved for his enjoyment shall stand extinguished.
            (2)     The certificate of purchase issued as above, shall be
C           conclusive proof of the assignment to the tenant of the right,
            title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries,
            if any, over the holding or portion thereof to which the
            assignment relates.”
                                                              (emphasis supplied)
D             15. Section 102 of the Land Reforms Act authorises the
      Government or any person aggrieved by any order of the Land Tribunal
      to file an appeal within such time, as may be prescribed, to the Appellate
      Authority.
              16. Rule 5 of the Land Reforms Rules authorizes the Land Tribunal
E     to initiate suo motu proceedings; which is as under:
            “5. Land Tribunal to initiate suo motu proceedings. – (1)
            Where a Land Tribunal receives information that the right, title
            and interest of the landowner and intermediaries in respect of a
            holding or part of a holding situate within its jurisdiction have vested
F           in the Government under Section 72, it shall, notwithstanding that
            an application referred to in Rule 4 has not been received in respect
            of that holding or part, as the case may be, of its own motion
            assign such right, title and interest to the cultivating tenants entitled
            thereto in the manner hereinafter provided.”
G            17. As noticed above, sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the KPF Act
      provides for the exemption of the private forest from vesting. It states
      that the land comprised in private forest held by an owner under his
      personal cultivation is exempted from vesting, if the ceiling limit under
      the Kerala Land Reforms Act is not exceeded. The land in question
      measures about 2 acres. It is not the case of the appellants that the land
H
         STATE OF KERALA v. MOHAMMED BASHEER                                   487
                   [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

exceeds the ceiling limit under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The               A
expression ‘held by the owner under his personal cultivation’ contained
in sub- section (2) of Section 3 of the KPF Act is crucial. To bring the
land under the exempted category, the claimant should hold the same as
an owner and that it should be under his personal cultivation. ‘To own’ is
to have good legal title to hold and possess the property. Black’s Law
                                                                               B
Dictionary, Ninth Edition defines the word ‘own’ as ‘to rightfully have
or possess as property; to have legal title to’.
       18. It is well settled that when the enactment enjoins that any
evidence would be treated as a conclusive proof of certain factual situation
or legal hypothesis, the law would forbid other evidence to be adduced
for the purpose of contradicting or varying the aforesaid conclusiveness.      C
This is the principle embodied in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, 1872
when it defines “conclusive proof” (See: Cheeranthoodika
Ahmmedkutty and Anr. v. Parambur Mariakutty Umma and Ors.
reported in 2000 (2) SCC 417).
       19. In the instant case, the land in question is jenmam land. The       D
Land Tribunal initiated suo motu proceedings under Rule 5 of the Land
Reform Rules, after obtaining information that the cultivating tenant had
been in possession, obviously on a report of the revenue inspector. It is
evident from Section 74 of the Land Reforms Act that any tenancy after
01.04.1964 is prohibited. Any tenancy created after that date is invalid.      E
The Land Tribunal initiating proceedings under Section 72B in favour of
the cultivating tenant would be considering the possession of a tenant as
on the said date which is far earlier than the KPF Act. Possession and
title under the certificate of purchase have to relate back to a date prior
to the date of vesting under the Land Reforms Act, i.e. 01.04.1964.
Therefore, there is no question of vesting of the land in the Government       F
under the KPF Act which has come into force subsequent to the date of
Land Reforms Act. As noted above, the certificate of purchase issued
under the Land Reforms Act is attributed with statutory conclusiveness
as regards ownership/title under sub-section (2) of Section 72K. The
certificate issued by a competent Land Tribunal after finding that the         G
tenant was in possession of the property as a cultivating tenant is a
conclusive proof of possession as well.
       20. In the instant case, certificate of purchase has been issued in
favour of the respondent after enquiry by the Land Tribunal. Though
the State Government is not a party to this order, there was no bar for it     H
488             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A     to challenge this order under Section 102 of the Land Reforms Act. No
      appeal has been filed challenging the certificate of purchase either by
      the Government or by any other person. Thus, the certificate of purchase
      has become final.
             21. To sum up, the certificate of purchase was issued by the Land
B     Tribunal, under sub-section (1) of Section 72K. Sub-section (2) of Section
      72K of the Land Reforms Act clearly states that the certificate of
      purchase issued under sub-section (1) shall be a conclusive proof of the
      assignment to the tenant of the right, title and interest of the landlord and
      the intermediaries, if any, over the holding or portion thereof to which
      the assignment relates. Thus whatever right, title and interest, the landlord
C     had in the land, has been assigned in favour of the respondent under the
      certificate of purchase. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the
      respondent is the owner of the land as he has legal title to hold the said
      land. As noticed above, the certificate is also a conclusive proof of the
      fact that the respondent has been in possession of the land as a cultivating
D     tenant right from the date of vesting of the land under the Kerala Land
      Reforms Act. In our view, the land in question is exempted from vesting
      in the State under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the KPF Act.
              22. In Kunjanam Antony (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Kerala
      and Anr. (2003) 3 SCC 221, relied on by the learned senior counsel for
E     the appellants, it has been held that the order of the Thaluka Land Board
      is a piece of evidence so far as the proceedings under the Kerala Private
      Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 are concerned, but it cannot
      be treated as binding on the authorities. In this judgment, the statutory
      conclusiveness of title under sub-section (2) of Section 72K of the Land
      Reforms Act has not been considered. Apart from the above, it was
F     held that the certificate of purchase is also a piece of evidence which
      cannot be totally discarded. In the instant case, the respondent has
      established that he is the owner and in possession of the land on the
      appointed day on the basis of certificate of purchase and other materials
      placed on record.
G           23. The appeals are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed
      without order as to costs.


      Divya Pandey                                                 Appeals dismissed.

H