Supreme Court of India
V. PARUKUTTY MANNADISSIAR & ANR.versusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.
- Citation
- 1989 INSC 267
- Decided
- 5 September 1989
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- RANGANATH MISRA
Holding
The appellants are entitled to the return of the full 92 acres of land and the government cannot alter the High Court’s decision by administrative order.
Summary
The appellants were awarded 92 acres of forest land by a Kerala High Court decision in MFA No. 401/78 under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The State returned part of the land but later realized it contained valuable timber and refused to issue transit permits for the trees. The appellants filed a writ petition; the High Court directed the Forest Department to consider their timber permit applications but held they were not entitled to relief for trees on land not ordered to be restored. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the government could not alter the High Court's direction by an administrative order and that the appellants were entitled to the full 92 acres. The Court ordered the remaining 12 acres to be identified and handed over within four months, and provided that compensation for any shortfall be determined as per the Land Acquisition Act. The Court also directed compliance with the High Court's order on timber permits within three months.
Issues considered
- The government’s authority to alter a High Court’s direction regarding land restoration by administrative order.
- Whether the appellants are entitled to the full 92 acres of land or only 80 acres.
- The entitlement of the appellants to timber transit permits for trees on the restored land.
- The method of determining compensation for any shortfall in land restoration.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Kerala Private Forests Actland restorationadministrative ordertimber transit permitscompensationLand Acquisition Actforest law
Judgment
V. PARUKUTIY MANNADISSIAR & ANR.
v. A
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
SEPTEMBER 5, 1989
[RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.] B
Kera/a Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971: Sec-
tions 2(f), 3(2)-Vesting of private forests-Decision of Tribunal-
Whether Government could alter by administrative order.
The High Court, in an appeal; against a decision of the Forest
Tribnnal, under the provisions of the Kerala Forests (Vesting & Assign- c
ment) Act, 1971, held that 92 acres of forest land were to be given back
to the appellants. Accordingly, the Forest Department returned certain
lands. Later on they realised that the lands constituted thick forests and
had valuab.le trees thereon and refused the timber transit permits
applied for by the appellants. D
.~ Aggrieved against the decision, the appellants approached the High
Court by way of a Writ Petition. The High Court held that the appel-
lants were not entitled to any relief with regard to rosewood and other
trees cut from the lands that did not form part of the land ordered to be
restored to them. The High Court .directed the Forest Department to E
consider the application of the appellants and pass appropriate orders
after giving an opportunity to the appellants to put forward their
contentions.
This appeal, by special leave,, is against the said order of the High
Court. F
Allowing the appeal in part,
HELD: 1.1 The appellants are entitled to return of 92 acres of
land and not 80 acres. This is on the ground that the direction of the
High Court in the first appeal became final and in terms of such direc- G
tion 92 acres were to go back to the appellants. Government had no
· authority to alter the decision by an administrative order as has been
done in this case. l41DJ
1.2 There is no dispute that 56.31 acres have been restored to the
appellants.· By the affidavit of 24th June, 1989, 23.69 acres have _been H
37
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
- - -
A offered to be restored from three survey numbers indicated therein.
With the restoration of 23 .69 acres the appellants would have got back
80 .acres of land. There would still be 12 acres to be returned to the
appellants. The respondents shall have a direction to trace these 12
acres in the locality and make over vacant possession to the appellants
thereof within four months. [4 lE] . . -
B
1.3 In case 23.69 acres or any part thereof as indicated in the
affidavit cannot be delivered possession and the balance 12 acres are not
identified and possesion thereof cannot be .delivered, the appellants
shall be entitled to compensation in respect of the shortfall out of 35.69
acres in all which remain to be delivered and compensation for such
C shortfall shall be determined as if it were acquisition under the provi-
sions of the Land Acquisition Act, the date of the preliminary notifica-
tion being deemed to be the date of judgment of the Division Bench in
MFA 401/78. The directions indicated above shaU be worked out by the
respondents within a total period of six months. [41F-G]
D 2. The High Court called upon the respondents to consider the
appellants' plea for timber. transit permits in respect of trees cut from
certain other lands. There is no material on record as to whether that
has been complied with. In case the respondents have not done the same
yet, they are directed to com.Ply with the order of the High Court within
three months. ·[41H; 42A]
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
3694-3695 of 1989.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.1987 of the Kerala
High Court in O.P. Nos. 4932 of 1983 and 1091of1982.
F
T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer and E.M.S. Anam for the· Appel-
lants.
P.S. Poti and P.K. Pillai for the Respondents.
G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, J. Special leave granted. We have
heard learned counsel for the parties.
In disposing of the appeal against a decision of the Forest _,,
H Tribunal under the provisions of the Kerala Priva_te Forests (Vesting &
V.P. MANNADJSSIAR v. STATE OF KERALA (MISRA, J.( 39
Assignment) Act, 1971, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in
A
MFA No. 401/78 disposed of on 14th of July, 1980, directed:
"It follows that out of 102 acres 25 acres over which teak
was planted in 1967 and eucalyptus was planted in 1955 will
be private forest coming within the Private Forests (Vest-
ing & Assignment) Act. But since this area is under the B
personal cultivation of the respondent she will be entitled
to 15 acres under Section 3(2) of the Act. The rest 10 acres
will vest with the Government.
In the result the appeal is partly allowed and the
order of the lower court is modified as follows:
c
It is declared that 75 acres over which the respondent
had planted teak-wood, orange and soft woop prior to 14th
December, 1949, is held to be not a private forest under the
Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 and
Kerala Private Forests (Vesting & Assignment) Act, 26 of D
I 1971. But of the rest 2 acres over which the respondent had
planted cashew is declared to be not a private fore,St under
Section 2(f)( 1)(i)(A) and (C) of the Act. Another 15 acres
under the personal cultivation of the respondent is also
held not to vest under the above Act under Section 3(2) of
the Act. The Custodian shall demarcate this 15 acres in E
such a manner that it will be con,~ient for the enjoyment
of the respondent:-Tue balance '10 acres will vest with the
Government. With .the demarcation and identification of
that 10 acres the ca~e is sent back to the J'nrest Tribunal. If
the Custodian has \liken possession of the area declared not
to vest, he will surrender the same to the respondent forth- F
• with ..... "
In terms of this judgment 92 acres (being the total of 75 acres +
15 acres + 2 acres) were to be given back to the appellants. In the
process of implementation of this direction certain lands were returned
to the appellants by the Forest officials. These lands constituted thick G
forests and had valuable trees thereon. This fact was realised by the
higher officers of the Department and timber transit permits were not
issued to the appellants when applied for. Thereupon the appellants
filed a writ petition before the High Court for a direction to the State
Government and its officers to issue the requisite transit permits to
enable the appellants to transport the rosewood trees and other H
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS l 1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
timber. The claim contested. The High Court came to the conclusion:
A
"It is made clear that the petitioners are not entitled to any
relief with regard to rosewood and other trees cut from the
lands which do not form part of the lands ordered to be
restored to the petitioner in O.P. No. 4832 of 1983 and are
B vested in the Government. With respect to the trees cut
from the properties ordered to be restored to the peti-
tioner, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to consider the
applications filed by the petitioner for issue of transit
permits and pass appropriate orders according to law.
Before determining this question also the respondents may
give an opportunity to both the petitioners to put forward
c ,, their contentions and a final decision may be taken after
considering their objections."
This order of the High Court is the subject-matter of the present
appeal.
D
In an affidavit filed in this appeal by the conserVator and Custo-
dian of Vested Forests it has been accepted that in terms of the judg-
ment of the High Court in MFA No. 401/78, 92 acres were found not to
I
vest in the State under the Act. In the judgment the survey numbers
with the respective extents had been furnished. It is stated that 12
IE acres had not been taken possession of and, therefore, surrender had
to be made of 80 acres only. A further affidavit has been filed by the
said Custodian where it has been said:
"Hence only 80 acres are to be restored and out of this
56.31 acres have admittedly been restored already. For the
F remaining 23.69 acres, Government are pleased to restore
the same as follows vide G.0. Rt. No. 1345/82/AD da.ted •
24.5.82, in lieu of the land wrongly handed over to the
petitioner.
Survey No. Area to be restored.
G 1518 10.19 acres
1580 6.03 acres
1580 7.47 acres"
It' has been further stated therein that in case any part of such land is
not available, the Government are prepared to pay reasonable com-
H pensation for such shortfall as if the same had been acquired by the
Staie for a public purpose.
V.P. MANNADISSIAR v. STATE OF KERALA .(MISRA, J.I 41
We are of the view that the High Court was right in refusing to
A
act upon the footing that pursuant to the direction by the High Court
about 36 acres of land containing forest growth had been surrendered
to the appellants and, therefore, they were entitled to appropriate the
trees. In fact within the ambit of the writ petition as filed before the
High Court, the only question that fell for consideration was whether
timber transit permits should or should not be issued to the appellants B
to enable them to transport the felled timber from the area which
• should not have been delivered to the appellants. Since we do not
intend to differ from the High Court on that issue this appeal deserves
to be dismissed but with a view to doing complete justice to the parties
and give a final verdict in the matter we had enquired from Mr. Poti
appearing for the respondent-State on 27.3.1989 as to how Govern-
ment proposed to comply with the binding direction of the High Court c
given in the first appeal. The affidavit of 24th of June, 1989 by the
Custodian of Vested Forests is in answer to that query.
We would like to reiterate that the appellants are .entitled to
return of. 92 acres of land and not 80 acres. This is on the ground that D
I the direction ~f the High Court in the first appeal became final and in
terms of such direction 92 acres were to go back to the appellants.
Government had no authority to alter the decision by an administra-
tive order as has been done on 22.5.1982. There is no dispute that
56.31 acres have been restored to the appellants. By the affidavit of
24th of June, 1989, 23.69 acres have been offered to be restored from E
three survey numbers indicated therein. With the restoration of 23.69
acres the appellants would have got back 80 acres of land. There would
still be 12 acres to be returned to the appellants. The respondents shall
have a direction to trace these 12 acres in the locality and make over
vacant possession to the appellants thereof within four months hence.
In case 23.69 acres or any part thereof as indicated in the affidavit F
cannot be delivered possession and the balance 12 acres are not
identified and possession thereof cannot be delivered, the appellants
shall be entitled to compensation in respect of the shortfall out of 35 .69
acres in all which remain to be delivered and compensation for such
shortfall shall be determined as if it were acquisition under the provi-
sions of the Land Acquisition Act, the date of the preliminary notifica- G
tion being deemed to be the date of judgment in MFA 401/78. The
directions indicated above shall be worked out by the respondents
within a total period of six months from today.
The High Court called upon the respondents to consider the
appellants' plea for timber transit permits in respect of trees cut from H
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
A ce;tain other lands. There is no material on record as to whether that
has been complied with. In case the respondents have not done the
same yet they are directed to comply with the order of the High Court
within three months from today.
B The appeal is allowed in part. Parties are directed to bear their
respective costs.
G.N. Appeal allowed partly.
I
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Kerala Private Forests Act"Sign in to search