Supreme Court Upholds Forest Land Vesting, Rejects Tax Mandamus: Village Officer vs. Chunayamakkal Joseph (2022)

Date of the Judgment: January 19, 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 49

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. (authored by M.R. Shah, J.)

Can a High Court direct revenue authorities to accept basic tax on land that has been declared a vested forest? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning land in Kerala. The core issue revolved around the conflict between private land claims and the state’s vesting of private forests, ultimately determining whether the High Court could mandate the acceptance of basic tax on disputed land.

Case Background

The case involves 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 of the land based on purchase certificates issued by the Land Tribunal. However, the Forest Department contested this claim, asserting that the land was part of a vested forest.

The respondents initially obtained possession of the properties in 1956 on leasehold rights and were paying tax, enjoying the properties by residing therein and effecting improvements and cultivating rubber, pepper, coffee, etc. Subsequently, the respondents obtained the said properties assigned in their favour by certificates of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

The Land Tribunal later cancelled these purchase certificates, stating that the land was part of the vested forest. The respondents then filed cases before the Forest Tribunal, which were dismissed. Despite these setbacks, the respondents approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the revenue authorities to accept basic tax on the land.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondents initially filed OAs before the Forest Tribunal, which were dismissed. Subsequently, the Land Tribunal cancelled the purchase certificates issued to the respondents. The respondents then filed civil suits seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction, which were initially decreed by the Munsiff’s Court but later set aside by the Subordinate Judge’s Court. The High Court upheld the Subordinate Judge’s decision, stating that the civil court lacked jurisdiction in matters related to forest land.

Instead of initiating further proceedings under the 1971 Act, the respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a direction to the revenue authorities to accept basic tax on the land. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Village Officer to accept the basic tax. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal framework for this case is the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. Section 3 of the 1971 Act states that all private forests in Kerala shall vest in the government, free from all encumbrances. Section 4 of the 1971 Act deems all vested forests as Reserved Forests. Section 8 of the 1971 Act deals with “Settlement of Disputes”, providing a mechanism for resolving disputes related to whether a land is a “private forest” or has vested in the Government.

The term “private forest” is defined under section 2(f) of the 1971 Act and it excludes, inter alia, the lands which are used principally for the cultivation of tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber etc. and lands used for any purpose ancillary to the cultivation of such crops or for the preparation of the same for the market.

The Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 is also relevant, particularly Section 5, which deals with the levy of basic tax on land. The Kerala Private Forest (Tribunal) Rules, 1972, specifically Rule 2A, which allows for the notification of land as a “private forest land,” is also relevant.

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had not considered that a notification had been issued under Rule 2A of the 1972 Rules, declaring the lands in question as a “private forest land,” vide notification issued in the year 1977.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the disputed land is vested with the Forest Department, and it is a private forest land for which a notification has been issued in 1975. They contended that there is no question of accepting any basic tax from the respondents.
• They submitted that the respondents lost before the Forest Tribunal, and the jenmam rights and Purchase Certificates in respect of the respondents have been cancelled, and the same has attained finality.
• The appellants further argued that since the land is vested with the Forest Department, and the respondents’ rights have been cancelled, they have no right, title, or interest in the property.
• They also contended that the High Court failed to recognize the mala fide intention of the respondents in seeking a writ of mandamus to establish their right and ownership over the land, which is vested with the Government.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that they are the owners and possessors of the land, having obtained possession in 1956 and later having been assigned the land by certificates of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal.
• They submitted that the term “private forest” under section 2(f) of the 1971 Act excludes lands used for cultivation of tea, coffee, rubber, etc. and that the lands in question are used for such cultivation.
• The respondents pointed out that the Divisional Forest Officer admitted their possession in counter-affidavits filed before the Forest Tribunal. They argued that this admission means there is no dispute for settlement under section 8 of the 1971 Act.
• They contended that the High Court rightly relied upon the counter affidavits filed by the Divisional Forest Officer 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 numbered list. However, the core issue before the court was:

• Whether the High Court was correct in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the revenue authorities to accept basic tax from the respondents, given that the land in question was declared a vested forest and the respondents’ rights had been cancelled.

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 explicitly cite any cases or books in this judgment. However, the Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 3 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971: This section provides for the vesting of private forests in the government.
• Section 4 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971: This section states that all vested forests are deemed Reserved Forests.
• Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971: This section deals with the settlement of disputes regarding whether a land is a “private forest” or has vested in the Government.
• Section 2(f) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971: This section defines the term “private forest”.
• Section 5 of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961: This section deals with the levy of basic tax on land.
• Rule 2A of the Kerala Private Forest (Tribunal) Rules, 1972: This rule allows for the notification of land as a “private forest land.”

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 3 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 was used by the Court to establish that the land in question was vested with the government.
• Section 4 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 was used by the Court to highlight that the vested forest is deemed to be a Reserved Forest.
• Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 was used by the Court to highlight that any dispute with respect to the forest land can only be settled under this provision.
• Section 2(f) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 was used by the Court to highlight the definition of “private forest”.
• Section 5 of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 was used by the Court to explain the levy of basic tax on land.
• Rule 2A of the Kerala Private Forest (Tribunal) Rules, 1972 was used by the Court to show that the land was declared as a vested forest land.

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 declared a vested forest under the 1971 Act, and the respondents’ claims to the land had been legally extinguished. The Court emphasized that the High Court overlooked the cancellation of the respondents’ jenmam rights and purchase certificates and that the respondents were attempting to establish ownership through a writ of mandamus, which is not permissible. The Court also emphasized that any dispute with respect to the forest land can only be settled under Section 8 of the 1971 Act.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered the alternative interpretation that the respondents were merely seeking to pay tax on the land they possessed. However, the Court rejected this view, emphasizing that accepting basic tax would implicitly acknowledge the respondents’ ownership, which was not valid given the vesting of the forest land. The Court reasoned that the respondents were indirectly trying to establish their title through the writ of mandamus, which is not permissible.

The Court held that the High Court had erred in directing the revenue authorities to accept basic tax from the respondents. The Court reasoned that the land was declared a vested forest, the respondents’ rights had been cancelled, and that the respondents were attempting to establish ownership through the writ of mandamus, which is not permissible. The Court also emphasized that any dispute with respect to the forest land can only be settled under Section 8 of the 1971 Act.

The Supreme Court stated:

“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.”

“Any dispute with respect to the forest land can only be settled under Section 8 of the 1971 Act.”

“Therefore, the High Court has not properly appreciated the mala fide intention on the part of the respondents to pray for such a writ of mandamus and indirectly establishing their right, title and ownership over the disputed lands in question which, as such, is declared as a vested forest land as far back as in the years 1975/1977…”

The Supreme Court did not have a minority opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

• A High Court cannot direct revenue authorities to accept basic tax on land that has been declared a vested forest, especially when the claimants’ rights have been legally extinguished.
• The vesting of private forests under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, is upheld, and any disputes related to such vesting must be addressed under Section 8 of the 1971 Act.
• Writ of mandamus cannot be used to indirectly establish ownership over land, especially when the land is declared a vested forest and the claimants’ rights have been cancelled.
• The decision reinforces the state’s authority over vested forest land and clarifies the limitations on the High Court’s power to issue directives that undermine the vesting provisions.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions beyond setting aside the High Court’s judgments and orders.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot direct revenue authorities to accept basic tax on land that has been declared a vested forest, especially when the claimants’ rights have been legally extinguished. This decision reinforces the state’s authority over vested forest land and clarifies the limitations on the High Court’s power to issue directives that undermine the vesting provisions. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the decision clarifies the application of existing laws.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s orders. The Court held that the High Court had erred in directing the revenue authorities to accept basic tax from the respondents, as the land was declared a vested forest and the respondents’ rights had been cancelled. The Supreme Court emphasized that the respondents were attempting to establish ownership through a writ of mandamus, which is not permissible, and that any dispute with respect to the forest land can only be settled under Section 8 of the 1971 Act. This judgment clarifies the legal position on the vesting of private forests and the limitations on the High Court’s power in such matters.

Category

Parent Category: Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971

Child Categories:

• Section 3, Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971
• Section 4, Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971
• Section 8, Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971
• Section 2(f), Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971
• Vested Forests
• Writ of Mandamus
• Land Ownership
• Forest Land

Parent Category: Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961

Child Categories:

• Section 5, Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961
• Basic Tax

FAQ

Q: What is a vested forest?

A: A vested forest is a private forest that, by law, has been transferred to the ownership of the government. In Kerala, this is governed by the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971.

Q: Can I claim ownership of a vested forest?

A: Generally, no. Once a private forest is legally vested with the government, private ownership rights are extinguished. Any disputes must be resolved through the mechanisms provided under the 1971 Act.

Q: What is a writ of mandamus?

A: A writ of mandamus is a court order that compels a government body or official to perform a specific duty. It cannot be used to establish ownership or circumvent legal processes.

Q: Can a High Court order the revenue authorities to accept basic tax on vested forest land?

A: No, the Supreme Court has clarified that a High Court cannot order revenue authorities to accept basic tax on land that has been declared a vested forest, especially when the claimants’ rights have been legally extinguished. This is because accepting basic tax implies recognition of ownership, which is not valid for vested forest land.

Q: What should I do if I have a dispute regarding vested forest land?

A: Any disputes related to whether a land is a “private forest” or has vested in the Government should be resolved under Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971.