In absence of valid title in respect of vested forest land, there is no question of acceptance of basic tax leviable under Kerala Land Tax Act: SC

Read Judgment: Village Officer & Others V. Chunayamakkal Joseph & Another

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, January 21, 2022: The Supreme Court has opined that once the notification issued u/s 2A of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) 1972 Rules declaring the lands in question as vested forest land stands and as on today there are no jenmam rights and/or purchase certificates in favour of Chunayamakkal Joseph & Another (Respondents), then they cannot be said to be the owner. 

A Division Bench of Justice M.R Shah and Justice B.V Nagarathna therefore observed that once there is no valid title in respect of the vested forest land, then there is no question of any acceptance of basic tax leviable under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961.

Going by the background of the case, the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 came into force in the year 1971, as per which the ownership and possession of all private forests in the State of Kerala shall stand vested in the Government free from all encumbrances. Now, the land in question was notified as vested Forest on July 08, 1977 and the Land Tribunal, Thaliparamba issued Purchase Certificates in favour of Chunayamakkal Joseph & Another (Respondents) in respect of 12 acres of land in Naduvil village. However, the Tahsildar after inspection found that part of the property involved in the patta was actually the vested forest. This culminated in the proceedings before the Forest Tribunal as well as the District Development Committee. Subsequently, notices were issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the earlier decision granting Purchase Certificates should not be re-opened/cancelled. 

When the matter reached the High Court, the Authorities were directed to complete the proceedings, pursuant to which the Land Tribunal cancelled the order of assignment of jenmam rights and the Purchase Certificates issued to the respondents. Although the Munsiff Court decreed the suit of permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of the respondents, the High Court set aside such order holding that the civil Court had no jurisdiction as per Section 13 of the 1971 Act in respect of matters which are to be decided by the Forest Tribunal constituted under the said Act.

Later, the Respondents approached the High Court seeking direction to the Village Officer (first Appellant) to accept the basic tax of the properties from them, as they were in possession of the properties in question. Opposing the same, the Divisional Forest Officer specifically stated that the respondents have no right over the forest land vested with the government. The Single Judge however directed the Village Officer to accept the basic tax from the respondents solely on the basis of the affidavits filed in the earlier proceedings. This direction was confirmed by the Division Bench as well. Hence, present appeal. 

After considering the submissions, the Apex Court noted that the High Court has not at all appreciated the fact that as such the jenmam rights and purchase certificates which were earlier issued in the years 1975 & 1979 in favour of the respondents have been cancelled by the appropriate authority. 

The High Court has also not appreciated the fact that as such a notification has been issued under Rule 2A of the 1972 Rules, the lands in question have been declared as a “private forest land” and the application challenging the said notification came to be dismissed by the Forest Tribunal, which is not challenged, found the Top Court. 

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Shah observed that High Court has also not appreciated that in order passed by the Land Tribunal cancelling the order of assignment of jenmam rights and certificates of purchase, the Land Tribunal specifically observed that applicants failed to establish tenancy rights claimed by them and the survey plan clearly shows that the lands in question are covered by the vested forest land of the government. 

Thus, as per the Land Tribunal, respondents cannot claim any right over the disputed lands in question, added the Bench. 

Hence, the Top Court quashed the judgments and orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as well as by the Single Judge.