STATE OF KERALA Vs. KALATHIL AMBADY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is preferred by the State against the order of the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode. The application before the Tribunal was one filed under Sec. 10(1) of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (hereinafter 'EFL Act'). One Kunhabdulla filed O.A 144/1975 to exempt 22.50 acres of land from the purview of Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter the Vesting Act of 1971). Ten acres out of the total was not treated as vested, even by the department. The Forest Tribunal declared 12.5 acres to be exempted which was confirmed by this Court by order dtd. 5/11/1984. The representations to restore the land having fell on deaf ears, Kunhabdulla filed O.P No.3704/1992 before this Court, pending which he died. His wife and son were impleaded and the forest department took the stand that they are ready to restore 7.5 acres of land; the balance 5 acres having been excluded, being in excess of the ceiling limit under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Based on this the OP was allowed on 7/6/1994, directing restoration to be done within two months. The restoration in effect was made only on 29/6/1997, to the legal representatives of Kunhabdulla. The applicant is said to have purchased the properties from the said legal heirs as per two documents numbered as 2321/97 dtd. 15/7/1997 and 2320/97 dtd. 16/7/1997 of SRO Neeleswaram.

(2.) In the instant application it was claimed that the subject land was cultivated with trees of coconut, cashew, jack, areca, rosewood etc. and after the Forest Department took possession, these trees were lost for no proper attention having been bestowed. The owner could enter the property only after restoration and after purchase of the same, the present applicant constructed Kayyalas to prevent soil erosion as also planted 300 coconut saplings, 150 cashew saplings, 50 areca saplings, 100 pepper wines, 100 rubber saplings etc. along with seasonal crops like ginger, cardamom etc. In 2006 the Forest officials prevented the workers from entering into the property and in 2007 a notice was issued by DFO Kannur stating the property has vested in the Government under the EFL Act, pointing out a notification in that respect and hence the application before the Tribunal.

(3.) The applicant testified that while carrying out agricultural operations the forest officials objected to irrigation of the property in October 2003 upon which the applicant sent a lawyer notice to the Forest Range Officer. There was no disturbance there after, till 2006, when notice was issued by the DFO Kannur based on the notification. The applicant asserted that the property is not an ecologically fragile land to be vested in Government under Sec. 3 of the EFL Act. The respondents on the other hand opposed the application pointing out that the scheduled property predominantly supports natural vegetation and therefore it is an ecologically fragile land vested under the EFL Act.