2025:KER:31457 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MFA (FOREST) NO. 44 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2015 IN O.A.NO.6 OF 2013 AS AMENDED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.222 OF 2019 DATED 28.09.2019 OF FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, (FOREST AND WILDLIFE), GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESRTS ARANYABHAVAN, FOREST COMPLEX, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SPL.GP (FOREST) RESPONDENT/APPLICANT: P.P.RAVEENDRAN S/O. RAMAKUMARAN EZHUTHASSAN, PALAKKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, AMBALAPPARA, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 512. BY ADV Jayaram P THIS MFA (FOREST) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 10.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:31457 SATHISH NINAN & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A. (Forest) No.44 of 2020 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of April, 2025 JUDGMENT Sathish Ninan, J. The State is in appeal challenging the order of the Forest Tribunal holding that the application schedule property in the original application is not a private forest vested in the Government under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Vesting Act”). 2. The property scheduled to the original application is described as having an extent of 11 cents. According to the applicant, it is part of a larger extent of property which originally belonged in Janmam to Kavungal Kala Kazhi Pannoli Mana. The property 2025:KER:31457 M.F.A. (Forest) No.44 of 2020 -: 2 :- including the application schedule property was outstanding on Verumpattam right with one Narayana Kurup. From out of the said property, Narayana Kurup assigned 18 cents including the application schedule property in favour of one Sankara Kurup under Ext.A1. Sankara Kurup assigned the application schedule property in favour of the applicant under Ext.A2. The applicant obtained Janmam right over the property from the Tribunal as per Ext.A3. The applicant contended that the application schedule property is not a private forest and that the MPPF Act is not applicable. It was also contended that the property has no characteristics of forest. The State contended that the application schedule property is part of a large malavaram known as Kavungal Malavaram. It was also claimed that it lies contiguous to yet another malavaram called Koonan 2025:KER:31457 M.F.A. (Forest) No.44 of 2020 -: 3 :- Malavaram. It was contended that the application schedule property is a typical forest. 3. The Tribunal found that the MPPF Act does not apply to the application schedule property and that it is not a forest. 4. We have heard Shri.Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) for the appellant-State and Shri.P. Jayaram, the learned counsel for the respondent-applicant. 5. To fall within the definition of private forest under S.2 (f) (1) (i) of the Vesting Act, it must be a land to which the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 (MPPF Act) applied. MPPF Act applies only to private forests having a contiguous area exceeding 100 acres. The respondent claimed the application schedule property to be part of Kavungal 2025:KER:31457 M.F.A. (Forest) No.44 of 2020 -: 4 :- Malavaram. Ext.B1 is a copy of the notification which shows that the extent of Kavungal Malavaram is only 35 hectors, which is only approximately 86 acres. Hence, the MPPF Act is not attracted. To get over the same, the State contended that, the said malavaram lies contiguous to another malavaram, named, Koonan Malavaram, which is having a total extent of 478 hectors. But for the bald contention, there is no material to show that the two malavaram are lying contiguous. The Range Officer, as RW1, admitted that there is no evidence to prove that it is contiguous. Therefore, the primary requirement that the property should be part of a private forest having an extent of more than 100 acres is not satisfied and hence, the MPPF Act is not applicable. Since the MPPF Act is not applicable, the first part of Section namely, S.2 (f) (1) (i) is not attracted. 2025:KER:31457 M.F.A. (Forest) No.44 of 2020 -: 5 :- 6. Now, we proceed to analyse the correctness of the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the applicability of Section 2 (f) (1) (ii) of the Vesting Act. Ext.C1 is the Commissioner's report. The report does not give any indication that the property falls within the meaning of 'forest' in its common parlance. The northern and eastern boundaries of the property are rubber plantations. The said fact is admitted by RW1. The western side is a private land and on the southern side is a Panchayat road. The Commissioner noticed the existence of 3 coconut trees, 6 “vattas” and 27 “sheemakonnas” in the property. Referring to the Commissioner's report, it is be evident that the property does not have the characteristics of a forest. The Commissioner could not notice the existence of any forest species in the property. We find that the 2025:KER:31457 M.F.A. (Forest) No.44 of 2020 -: 6 :- tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and found that the property is not a forest under Section 2 (f) (1) (ii) of the Vesting Act. 7. Thus we concur with the finding of the Tribunal that the property is not a vested forest under the Vesting Act. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No cost. Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE yd