Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.36 seconds)
Mrs. K.C.Padmakshy vs State Of Kerala - Notice For Whom May on 22 June, 2012 cites

Apren Joseph Alias Current Kunjukunju & ... vs The State Of Kerala on 1 September, 1972

10.The learned Special Government Pleader referred to the judgment of this Court in M.F.A.No.78 of 1983 dilating on the scope of the provisions in section 3. Sub-section 2 of section 3 refers to "personal cultivation". No evidence of that being available on record, the argument is that the applicant, who owned the private forests in question under a valid registered document, had the intention to cultivate, as on the appointed day. We look at that issue, reminding ourselves of the principles in Joseph's case (supra). If the purpose of Ext.A1 is followed, outright it can be seen that there is no case even of any rubber sapling having been planted. There is no case of any continued MFA162/11 -: 8 :- cultivation of cardamom. There is no shred of legal evidence to hold so. If it is assumed that there is continued cultivation of cardamom, that too, in a large extent of 100 acres or even a lesser extent of 20 acres (that being the limit available if the applicant is restricted to be with reference to the KLR Act), no material is placed to disclose the agricultural activity in relation to cardamom. There is nothing to show any agricultural activity having been initiated by the applicant, her husband or her children. No returns under Agricultural Income Tax Act are produced. Cardamom cultivation of such nature could be registered. Even if it is not, the usual course of business of running a cultivation of the extent of 100 acres or even 20 acres could be reflected by accounts maintained by the applicant. Even if she was getting it done through somebody else, including a karyasthan (Manager) as P.W.3 may claim to be, maintenance of accounts and availability of such material would be there. No such materials being available, we are unable to sustain the findings which are rendered in favour of the applicant by the Tribunal in the MFA162/11 -: 9 :- impugned order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 551 - I D Dua - Full Document
1