Supreme Court overturns High Court order on land tax for vested forest land: Village Officer vs. Chunayamakkal Joseph (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 19 January 2022. Citation: (2022) INSC 43. Judges: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna. Can a High Court direct revenue authorities to accept basic tax on land that has been declared as a vested forest? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, overturning a High Court decision that had compelled the acceptance of tax payments on such land. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court could mandate the acceptance of basic tax for land that had been officially declared as a vested forest under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case originated from a dispute over land in Kerala that was declared a vested forest under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The respondents, Chunayamakkal Joseph and another, claimed ownership and possession of the land, asserting that they had been cultivating it since 1956. They had also obtained purchase certificates from the Land Tribunal under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. However, this land was later notified as a vested forest on 8 July 1977. The Land Tribunal subsequently cancelled the purchase certificates. Despite this, the respondents sought a writ of mandamus from the High Court to compel the revenue authorities to accept basic tax payments for the land.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondents initially approached the Land Tribunal, which issued purchase certificates in their favor. However, the Forest Department raised objections, stating that the land was part of a vested forest. The respondents then filed applications before the Forest Tribunal, which were dismissed. Subsequently, the Land Tribunal cancelled the purchase certificates. The respondents filed civil suits seeking injunctions, but these were dismissed by the High Court, which held that the Forest Tribunal had jurisdiction over the matter. Instead of pursuing the matter before the Forest Tribunal, the respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a direction to the revenue authorities to accept basic tax. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Village Officer to accept the basic tax. This decision was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case is the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. Section 3 of the 1971 Act states:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any contract or other document, but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), with effect on and from the appointed day, the ownership and possession of all private forests in the State of Kerala shall by virtue of this Act stand transferred to and vested in the Government free from all encumbrances, and the right, title and interest of the owner or any other person in any private forest shall stand extinguished.”
This provision vests ownership of private forests in the government. Section 4 of the 1971 Act deems all vested forests as Reserved Forests. The Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, also plays a role, as it governs the collection of basic tax on land. The Kerala Private Forest (Tribunal) Rules, 1972, particularly Rule 2A, provides for the notification of private forest lands. Section 8 of the 1971 Act deals with the settlement of disputes related to whether a land is a private forest or has vested in the government.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the land in question was a vested forest, notified as such in 1975, and therefore, the respondents had no right to pay basic tax.
• They contended that the respondents had lost their case before the Forest Tribunal, and their jenmam rights and purchase certificates had been cancelled, which had attained finality.
• The appellants further argued that the High Court erred in not appreciating that the civil courts had no jurisdiction over the matter, as the dispute pertained to forest land, which was to be decided by the Forest Tribunal under the 1971 Act.
• They submitted that the respondents were attempting to establish their ownership over the land by seeking a writ of mandamus to accept basic tax, despite the land being vested with the government.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents claimed ownership and possession of the land, stating they had been cultivating it since 1956.
• They argued that they had obtained purchase certificates under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, recognizing their status as cultivating tenants.
• The respondents contended that the Divisional Forest Officer had admitted their possession in counter-affidavits filed before the Forest Tribunal.
• They submitted that since their possession was admitted, there was no dispute to be settled under Section 8 of the 1971 Act, and the dismissal of their applications by the Forest Tribunal was inconsequential.
• They argued that the High Court rightly relied on the counter affidavits and directed the revenue authorities to accept the basic tax.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

• Whether the High Court was correct in directing the revenue authorities to accept basic tax from the respondents for land that had been declared a vested forest under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. However, it considered the following legal provisions:

• Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971: The court considered Section 3, which vests private forests in the government, Section 4, which deems vested forests as Reserved Forests, and Section 8, which deals with the settlement of disputes regarding vested forests.
• Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961: The court considered Section 5, which deals with the levy of basic tax on land.
• Kerala Private Forest (Tribunal) Rules, 1972: The court considered Rule 2A, which provides for the notification of private forest lands.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971* was central to the Court’s reasoning. The Court emphasized that the vesting of private forests in the government under Section 3 extinguished the rights of the previous owners.
• The Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961* was considered in the context of the basic tax, but the Court held that the Act could not be used to establish ownership of vested forest land.
• The Kerala Private Forest (Tribunal) Rules, 1972* were used to highlight the notification process for declaring private forests as vested.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the land in question had been officially declared as a vested forest under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The Court emphasized that the respondents’ jenmam rights and purchase certificates had been cancelled, and they had lost their case before the Forest Tribunal. The Court also noted the mala fide intention of the respondents in seeking a writ of mandamus to accept basic tax, which was seen as an attempt to indirectly establish ownership over the vested forest land. The Court prioritized the legal framework of the 1971 Act, which clearly vests ownership of private forests in the government, over the claims of possession and tenancy rights made by the respondents. The court also noted that the High Court had erred in overlooking the cancellation of the respondents’ rights and the notification of the land as a vested forest.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the arguments that the respondents had been in possession of the land and had obtained purchase certificates, but ultimately rejected these arguments, prioritizing the legal framework of the 1971 Act. The Court stated, “Once the notification issued under Section 2A of the 1972 Rules declaring the lands in question as vested forest land stands and as on today there is no jenmam rights and/or purchase certificates in favour of the respondents herein with respect to the lands in question, respondent nos. 1 & 2 herein cannot be said to be the owner and/or cannot be said to be having a valid title in their favour and therefore there is no question of any acceptance of basic tax from them, leviable under the 1961 Act.” The Court also observed, “It appears that by asking such a relief of writ of mandamus directing the Village Officer/revenue authorities to accept the basic tax from them, the original writ petitioners – respondents herein want to create title/ownership in their favour.” The Court further noted, “Any dispute with respect to the forest land can only be settled under Section 8 of the 1971 Act.”

Key Takeaways

• Land declared as a vested forest under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, cannot be subjected to basic tax payments by private individuals.
• The cancellation of jenmam rights and purchase certificates extinguishes any claim of ownership or possession by private parties over vested forest land.
• High Courts cannot issue writs of mandamus to revenue authorities to accept basic tax for vested forest land, as such actions would be an attempt to establish ownership indirectly.
• Any dispute regarding forest land must be resolved under Section 8 of the 1971 Act, through the Forest Tribunal.
• The Supreme Court prioritizes the vesting of forest land with the government over claims of possession and tenancy rights.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions, but it quashed the judgments and orders of the High Court, effectively preventing the revenue authorities from accepting basic tax from the respondents for the disputed land.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that once land is declared as a vested forest under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, the ownership vests with the government, and no private individual can claim ownership or pay basic tax for such land. This judgment reinforces the principle that the vesting of forest land under the 1971 Act extinguishes all prior claims of ownership and possession. It also clarifies that the High Court cannot direct revenue authorities to accept basic tax for vested forest land, as that would be an indirect way of establishing ownership, which is not allowed under the law. This case does not change the previous positions of law but reinforces the existing legal framework related to vested forest land.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Village Officer vs. Chunayamakkal Joseph overturns the High Court’s order, reinforcing the principle that land declared as a vested forest under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, belongs to the government, and no private individual can claim ownership or pay basic tax for such land. The judgment clarifies that any dispute regarding such land must be resolved through the Forest Tribunal under Section 8 of the 1971 Act.