HEMALATHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exhibit P18, order dated August 06, 2010 passed by the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Tribunal, Palakkad (for short, "the Tribunal") is under challenge in this petition. Petitioners filed O.A. No.13 of 2010 claiming that property scheduled in that application is neither reserve forest nor Ecologically Fragile Land (for short, "the EF Land") and moved I.A. No.51 of 2010 for an order for temporary injunction to restrain the respondents - State and Conservator and Custodian of EF Land from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of property scheduled in O.A. No.13 of 2010. Petitioners contended that the decisions rendered by this Court in the matter supported their contention. Before the Tribunal respondents took up the stand that property involved in O.A. No.13 of 2010 has not been notified as EF Land either under Section 3 or Section 4 of Act 21 of 2005. Respondents stated so in their written statement as well. The Tribunal found that in the light of the said stand of respondents the Tribunal has no jurisdiction under Section 10 of Act 21 of 2005 to entertain the application since according to the Tribunal it is only when a dispute arises as to whether the application schedule property is EF Land that the Tribunal gets jurisdiction to decide such dispute. Holding so, I.A. No.51 of 2010 was dismissed. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that to attract jurisdiction of the Tribunal it is not necessary that there must be a notification and it is sufficient that there is a dispute whether the land in question is EF Land or not.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader for Forests.

(3.) No doubt it is not the Notification under Section 3 or 4 of Act 21 of 2005 that makes the land EF Land or not. As per the scheme of the Act, the EF Land would stand vested with the Government on the appointed day. Respondents have taken the stand that property scheduled in O.A. No.13 of 2010 has not so far been notified as EF Land. Learned Special Government Pleader for Forests after getting instructions from the respondents submitted before me that respondents have no claim that the property scheduled in O.A. No.13 of 2010 is EF Land. If that be so I must hold that there is no 'dispute' arising between the parties as to whether the property scheduled in O.A. No.13 of 2010 is EF Land or not. Hence the Tribunal is justified in dismissing I.A. No.51 of 2010. Resultantly, recording the submission of learned Special Government Pleader for Forests that there is no claim for the respondents that property scheduled in O.A. No.13 of 2010 is EF Land, this Original Petition is dismissed.