MFA No. 166 of 2002 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 02 Jan 2008
- Bench
- K HEMA
Outcome
Dismissed
The appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Kerala Private Forests(Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 s. 3(1)
- StateReorganisation Act, 1956 s. 5
- Madras Preservationof Private Forests Act, 1949 s. 1(2)
- Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963
- Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act
- theMadras Estates Land Act, 1908 s. 3
- theMadras Preservation of Private Forests Act
Judgment
Operative part
MFA.166/20024the boundaries include property of one Abdullah and some parambasand it is not continuous to any forest area notified under M.P.P.F Act .In the absence of any notification as mentioned under section 2(a), it cannot be a forest owned by private parties and covered under the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act. Therefore, there is no automatic vesting under section 3(1). Since the land is not automatically vested under section 3(1), the Act itself is not applicable. In view of the above, the Tribunal held that interference by the Forest department was not correct. We see no ground to interfere in the above. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGEtks
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Kerala Private Forests(Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 — s. 3(1); StateReorganisation Act, 1956 — s. 5; Madras Preservationof Private Forests Act, 1949 — s. 1(2); Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963; Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act; theMadras Estates Land Act, 1908 — s. 3.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 02 Jan 2008. The bench was K HEMA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.