SC asks Kerala to act fairly with ‘genuine cultivators’

The Supreme Court has urged the Kerala government to show greater circumspection and fairness in scrutinising claims of genuine cultivators

The Supreme Court has urged the Kerala government to show greater circumspection and fairness in scrutinising claims of genuine cultivators, underlining that citizens should not be dragged into unnecessary litigation to defend their property rights that are evident from public records.

The court’s remarks came while setting aside a 2012 judgment of the Kerala high court. (ANI)

Warning that avoidable disputes only undermine faith in governance and the judicial process, a bench of justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria said the cause of justice is best served when individuals are able to exercise their rights without undue interference by the State.

“Genuine cultivators should not be made to fight a prolonged battle to vindicate rights that are apparent from the public records. It is hoped that the State will henceforth show greater circumspection and fairness in scrutinizing claims of this nature, to avoid unnecessary litigation against citizens who have prima facie valid exemptions,” the bench held in its judgment last week that put a quietus to a 28-year-old dispute, granting title and possessory right to the petitioner before it.

The court’s remarks came while setting aside a 2012 judgment of the Kerala High Court and restoring ownership and possession rights over 37.5 acres of coffee and cardamom plantations in South Wayanad to M Jameela, who was sought to be ousted on the ground that the land constituted private forest vested in the state under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971.

The top court found that both the Forest Tribunal and the High Court adopted an unduly technical approach and failed to properly appreciate the material on record that demonstrated the existence of plantations well before the cut-off date of May 10, 1971. The justices noted that the claimants had produced credible documentary and expert evidence showing the land had been cleared and cultivated since the 1950s, and that the Forest Department itself had initially excluded the property from its vested forest demarcations.

“The evidence adduced by the appellants is not only credible but also largely unrefuted by the state,” observed the court, holding that the appellants had clearly established their status as bona fide planters whose property was exempt under the provisions of the Vesting Act.

The bench pointed out that the expert report commissioned after the high court’s earlier remand in 2006 had found that a substantial number of coffee plants on the property were between 40 and 42 years old as of 2007, aligning with a mid-1960s planting. The state, however, failed to produce any rebuttal evidence or scientific counter-study to dispute this finding.

Criticising the high court and the tribunal for “unwarranted scepticism” and a “technical and pedantic approach,” the Supreme Court said: “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. The object of the Act was not to divest areas genuinely under cultivation.”

Allowing the appeal, the court declared Jameela to be the lawful owner in possession of the lands and held that the property did not vest in the government on May 10, 1971. It restrained the state, the custodian of vested forests, and other officials from interfering with the petitioners’ peaceful enjoyment of their plantation.

Further, the court directed that any boundary markers or records encroaching into the appellants’ property be corrected within six weeks, and that the entire 37.5-acre plantation be excluded from forest demarcations.

While commending the “painstaking efforts” of the advocate commissioner and expert appointed during the proceedings, the bench concluded with a cautionary note to the state: “The declaration and directions above shall secure to the appellants the full enjoyment of their property rights… Genuine cultivators should not be made to fight a prolonged battle to vindicate rights that are apparent from public records.”