Supreme Court: Once Claimant Produces Substantial Evidence Of Cultivation, Slight Gaps Or Doubts Should Not Negate Claim In Forest Vesting Matters
The Supreme Court enunciated that vesting is the norm and exemption is the exception; hence the claimant must prove the applicability of the exception.
Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice N.V. Anjaria, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, once the claimant produces substantial evidence of cultivation, slight gaps or doubts should not negate the claim in vesting matters.
The Court was hearing Civil Appeals arising from a common Judgment of the Kerala High Court, which affirmed the Order of the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed, “The Tribunal and High Court, in our view, fell into error by effectively placing a higher standard (almost requiring scientific certainty) on the appellants. We reiterate that in vesting matters, once the claimant produces substantial evidence of cultivation, slight gaps or doubts should not negate the claim, especially if the claimant’s version is inherently probable and the State has largely left it uncountered. This approach is supported by the Full Bench ruling in M.S. Bhargavi Amma v. State of Kerala, which held that the object of the Act was not to divest areas which were genuinely under cultivation and that the authorities must adopt a practical view of the evidence, not a technical or pedantic view.”
The Bench enunciated that vesting is the norm and exemption is the exception; hence the claimant must prove the applicability of the exception.
Senior Advocate Chidambaresh appeared for the Appellants, while Senior Advocate Jayanth Muth Raj appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellants and their predecessors claimed title and possession of the suit lands and asserted that the lands were developed as coffee and cardamom plantations well before 1971. In 1971, faced with the Forest Department’s assertion that these lands were “vested forest” under the Vesting Act, the Appellants filed Applications before the Forest Tribunal under Section 8 of the Act, seeking to declare that the lands are not vested in the Government. The State resisted the Applications, maintaining that the lands in question constituted private forest as on the appointed day and hence, stood vested under Section 3(1) of the Act. The Forest Tribunal initially adjudicated the matter and dismissed the Applications in 1999. It held that the Appellants failed to prove the existence of the claimed plantations prior to May 10, 1971.
The Appellants carried the matter in Appeal to the High Court, which set aside the Tribunal’s Order and remanded the case for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the Tribunal appointed an Advocate Commissioner who in turn engaged an expert namely a retired Deputy Director of the Coffee Board to assist in ascertaining the age of the coffee plants. An inspection of the properties was conducted and a detailed report was submitted. Subsequently, the Tribunal again dismissed the Applications of the Appellants and denied the exemption under the Act. The Appellants challenged this before the High Court, which affirmed the Tribunal’s Order. Being aggrieved, the Appellants approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “It is well-settled, and Learned Senior Counsels on both sides concur on this point, that the burden of proof lies on the person who claims the benefit of these exemptions. This has been affirmed in multiple precedents, including Joseph & Another v. State of Kerala & Another, wherein it was held that the applicant before the Forest Tribunal must establish that the land does not fall within the definition of private forest under the Act i.e., in other words, either that it was not a forest at all, or that it was exempt by virtue of Sections 3(2) and 3(3).”
The Court said that these are civil proceedings, and the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
“The claimant is not required to demonstrate their case with absolute certainty or direct evidence of every historical fact which in many cases from 1971 would be impossible but must lead such evidence that a reasonable fact-finder can conclude that it is more likely than not that the ingredients of the exemption are satisfied”, it added.
The Court was of the view that the High Court’s analysis was relatively brief, and did not engage with several critical pieces of evidence.
“The High Court’s conclusion was that “there was no credible material” to show the coffee plants were pre-1971, and it agreed with the Tribunal in not relying on the expert’s report. If it emerges that the lower courts overlooked significant undisputed evidence or applied an excessively onerous standard of proof, that would amount to a legal infirmity enabling us to interfere”, it remarked.
The Court observed that the presence of younger plants in a plantation in 2007 does not automatically prove that area was barren in 1971 and that the plantations are dynamic; old plants die or are felled, and new ones are put in their place.
“What matters is the overall character of the land. Was it retained under cultivation, or did it revert to wilderness? Here, all evidence points to the former. … The fact that plantation tax was being paid on it indicates it was maintained. There is no evidence that the cardamom area was abandoned at any time”, it further noted.
The Court added that the Tribunal’s reasoning seemed to imply that since coffee was more obviously cultivated, they were more inclined to accept the coffee portion but were doubtful about cardamom.
“This is a misapprehension; cardamom cultivation may be less conspicuous, but it is cultivation nonetheless. The statute’s explanation explicitly includes cultivation of any species of plants. … The High Court’s failure to discuss the cardamom aspect separately is a lapse. They seemed to have focused mainly on coffee and generalized the lack of proof, which we find untenable”, it also said.
The Court noted that the High Court unfortunately took a rather technical view, focusing on perceived inadequacies (like not having a more ‘scientific’ test or not proving the exact year of planting) while ignoring the larger picture painted by the evidence.
“… the Tribunal and the High Court committed legal errors in their assessment. They approached the evidence with unwarranted skepticism and failed to consider material evidence in favor of the claimants. The High Court’s one-line dismissal that no credible material was shown is, with respect, contrary to the record which we have detailed. Such an observation, despite the voluminous documents and an expert report to the contrary, indicates a misdirection”, it held.
Conclusion
The Court said that it is possible that the sheer passage of time (and the consequent challenges of proof) coloured the Courts’ perspective, but that cannot justify denying relief when the available evidence actually tilted the balance in favor of the Appellants.
“The High Court also did not address the legal import of the prior proceedings (land board, plantation tax, etc.) or the effect of the Department's initial stand, all of which bolster the appellants‟ case. As such, the concurrent findings are manifestly unsustainable on the evidence and deserve to be set aside. This is one of those exceptional cases where, notwithstanding two lower court decisions, the interference of this Court is warranted to prevent miscarriage of justice to bona fide cultivators”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, set aside the impugned Judgment, declared the Appellants as lawful owners, and restrained the State from interfering with the Appellants’ peaceful possession.
Cause Title- M. Jameela v. The State of Kerala and Another Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1254)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Chidambaresh, AOR A. Venayagam Balan, Advocates K. P. Rajagopalan, Jaimon Andrews, Harikrishna R, Santhanalakshmi, and Puneet Thakur.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Jayanth Muth Raj, AORs Nishe Rajen Shonker, Abdulla Naseeh V.T., Advocates Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Devika A.L., and Santhosh K.
