Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

T.M.MATHEW,ROSE VILLA,AKATHETHARA versus THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS &

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


T.M.MATHEW,ROSE VILLA,AKATHETHARA v. THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS & - RP No. 389 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 9416 (4 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP No. 389 of 2007()

1. T.M.MATHEW,ROSE VILLA,AKATHETHARA
... Petitioner

2. THRESIAMMA,D/O.JOSEPH,ROSE VILLA,

Vs

1. THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS &
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE

For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN(SR.)

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :04/06/2007

O R D E R

J.B.KOSHY & M.N.KRISHNAN, JJ.

R.P.NO.389 OF 2007 IN M.F.A.No.1234 OF 1998 Dated 4th June, 2007

ORDER

Koshy,J

. Finding of the Forest Tribunal based on Ext.C1 Commissioner's report and evidence that the land in question was full of forest trees and disputed area is not a cultivated area and not entitled to exemption under sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, was upheld by this court by the judgment under review. For claiming exemption under Section 3(3), one has to prove that there is valid title deed. Admittedly, the land was not under personal cultivation of the petitioner on the appointed day. We have also found that it was not proved that claimant has any valid title at the time when the Act came into force and it was also not a cultivated area on the appointed day. A mere statement that there was an intention to cultivate is not enough. Scheduled area is a dense forest. Intention to cultivate has to be gathered only by surrounding circumstances. There is no circumstance to show the same. In any event, already the arguments placed before us were considered while passing the judgment under review. If the above finding is erroneous, it is for the petitioner to file R.P.389/2007 2 an appeal. A review petition cannot be equated to a petition for re-hearing of the matter or appeal proceedings. No grounds are made out for reviewing the judgment. The review petition is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY

JUDGE

M.N.KRISHNAN

JUDGE

tks


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.