[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Mohanan vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 2026
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2026:KER:15248
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1947
MFA (FOREST) NO. 25 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.01.2016 IN OA NO.19 OF 2012
OF FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MOHANAN
S/O.KOMALAVALLY AMMA, VADAKKEPALAYIL
HOUSE,THOLANUR, ALATHUR.
BY ADV SHRI.A.R.GANGADAS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY(FOREST AND
WILD LIFE), SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM.
2 THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS
ARANYA BHAVAN, OLAVAKKAODE,PALAKKAD-678 002.
BY ADV SHRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SPL. G.P. (FOREST)
ADV.ARAVIND V. MATHEW, GP
THIS MFA (FOREST) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 20.02.2026,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:15248
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.F.A. (Forest) No.25 of 2018
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
Sathish Ninan, J.
The order of the Forest Tribunal, dismissing the
Original Application filed by the applicant, seeking a
declaration that the application schedule property is liable
to be exempted under Section 3 (3) of the Kerala Private
Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Vesting Act'), is under challenge in this appeal.
2. The application schedule property has an extent of
4.07 acres. The property originally belonged in Jenmom to
one Sukhapuram Sabha Yogam. One Gangadhara Mannadiyar got
'Kanam' right over the property. He later assigned the
property to the Thavazhi of the applicant's mother under
Ext.A1 Assignment Deed. Under Ext.A2 Partition, the property
was allotted to the applicant as included in 'C' schedule
2026:KER:15248
therein. According to the applicant, the land was subjected
to fugitive cultivation and dry crops. Alleging obstruction
on the part of the Forest Department on 28.06.2012, from
enjoying the property, the Original Application was filed.
3. The Tribunal upheld the title of the applicant.
However, it was found that he failed to prove that he does
not possess land in excess of the ceiling area under the
Kerala Land Reforms Act. It was also found that the
applicant has failed to prove that the land was under
cultivation as on the relevant date.
4. We have heard Shri.A.R. Gangadas, the learned
counsel for the appellant-applicant and Shri.Nagaraj
Narayanan, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forests),
on behalf of the respondents.
5. That the property is a private forest under the
Vesting Act, is not disputed. The claim is that the property
is liable to be exempted under Section 3 (3) of the Vesting
Act. Section 3 (1) provides for vesting of private forest in
2026:KER:15248
the State on and from the appointed date, namely,
10.05.1971. Section 3 (2) and Section 3 (3) provide for
exemption from vesting of certain categories of land.
Section 3 (3), which is relevant for the present case, is
extracted hereunder;
"S.3(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 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."
Three essentials are required to be proved for the grant of
exemption thereunder: (i) the property must be held under a
valid registered title deed executed before the appointed
day; (ii) the property must have been held with an intention
to cultivate; and, (iii) the total extent of property held by
him, including the subject property, shall not exceed the
ceiling area under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
6. The Tribunal found that condition No.(i) has been
2026:KER:15248
satisfied by the applicant; the other two conditions were
held otherwise.
7. Before this Court, the appellant has, along with
I.A.No.1 of 2025 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, produced a certificate dated 22.11.2025
issued from the concerned Village Officer to the effect that
he holds only 0.0203 hectors (5 cents). When the said extent
is reckoned along with the OA schedule property, it would
show that the total extent of the property held by him is
only less than the ceiling area under the Land Reforms Act.
The document being crucial for rendering a just judgment and
for the ends of justice, we accept the document in evidence.
Thus, we find that condition No.(iii) is also satisfied.
8. With regard to condition No.(ii), the applicant has
to prove that, as on the appointed day, he was holding the
property with an intention to cultivate. In Joseph and another
v. State of Kerala and another [2007 (2) KHC 619], the Apex Court held;
2026:KER:15248
"such intention on the part of the purchaser can be gathered from his conduct in
regard to the development of land for making it fit for cultivation preceding to and
subsequent to the date of vesting".
9. Now we need to consider the materials on record to
ascertain whether the intention of the applicant to
cultivate the property could be gathered. Ext.C1
Commissioner's report does not give any such indication. On
the contrary, the report seems to suggest that the property
was not subjected to cultivation. So also is the evidence of
PWs2 and 3, who were examined by the applicant to establish
cultivation of his intention to cultivate. However, their
deposition is to the effect that the property is filled with
trees of forest species. There is no material to find that
as on the appointed day the property was held with an
intention to cultivate. The evidence on record does not even
suggest the applicant had been cultivating the property. No
material could be brought to our notice to enter a different
finding. Therefore, the applicant has failed to establish
2026:KER:15248
condition No.(ii) to claim for exemption under Section 3 (3).
We concur with the Tribunal in having held so.
We do not find any merits in the appeal. The appeal
fails and is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
yd
2026:KER:15248
APPENDIX OF MFA (FOREST) NO. 25 OF 2018
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE ORIGINAL OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED
BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PERINGOTTUKURRUSSI-II VILLAGE, PALAKKAD
DATED 22.11.2025.
