PLANTERS FORUM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Principal Challenge in this bunch of Writ Petitions is to the constitutional validity of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2003 Act").Apart from the above challenge, other reliefs have also been claimed in some of the Writ Petitions. The bunch also includes a few Writ Petitions filed as Public Interest Litigation supporting the 2003 Act and challenging the action of the respondents in excluding some of the estates as not being ecologically fragile land. The issues raised in this bunch of Writ Petitions are of public importance and relevant for human life and nature.

(2.) For appreciating the issues raised in these Writ Petitions and for answering the issues, it is necessary to note the facts of some of the Writ Petitions of this bunch. Most of the Writ Petitions raise similar question of facts and law and hence it shall be sufficient to note facts of some of the Writ Petitions which may suffice the decision in all the Writ Petitions. Writ Petition No.26691 of 2010 which has been argued in extenso is being treated as the leading Writ Petition. Apart from noticing the facts of Writ Petition No.26691 of 2010, facts in some other Writ Petitions including some Writ Petitions filed as Public Interest Litigation need to be noted for having a complete view of the issues and challenges raised before us.

(3.) First petitioner is a registered private Trust formed with the object of benefiting planters and cultivators of cardamom, pepper, vanila, others spices, rubber, tea, coffee, other cash crops and food crops. One of the objects of the Trust is to take up issues pertaining to planters and cultivators who are the beneficiaries of the Trust and particularly to challenge the 2003 Act on behalf of the beneficiaries. Second petitioner along with his sisters owned an extent of 25 hectares of land in Old Sy. No.1226 (part) of Vellarimala Village in Vythiri Taluk of Wayanad District. After enforcement of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1971 Act) petitioners' land was treated as having vested in the State Government. Petitioner raised a challenge before the Forest Tribunal under Sec.8 of the 1971 Act. The Tribunal allowed the claim of the petitioner and held that the property of the second petitioner is plantation being exempted under the 1971 Act from vesting. A Notification under Sec.3(2) of the 2003 Act dated 24.06.2006 was issued notifying 25 hectares of land of the 2nd petitioner as ecologically fragile land vested in the Government as per Sec.3(1) of the 2003 Act. Petitioners filed W.P(C) No.29049 of 2007 before this Court challenging the Notification on the ground that the land found to be a plantation and exempted from vesting under the 1971 Act could not be the subject matter of vesting under Sec.3 of the 2003 Act. In the above Writ Petition this Court directed the Custodian of ecologically fragile land to adjudicate the matter under Sec.19(3)(b) of the 2003 Act. The second petitioner filed S.L.P(C) No.8374 of 2009 before the Supreme Court against the above judgment of the High Court which SLP is said to be pending. In this Writ Petition the petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the 2003 Act. The 2003 Act was preceded by Ordinance Nos.6/2000, 8/2000, 3/2001 and 16/2001. The 2003 Act was passed by the State Legislature and notified on 06.06.2005. Section 1(2) further provided that the 2003 Act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 2nd day of June, 2000. The 2003 Act also received the assent of the President of India on 25.04.2005. Petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the 2003 Act principally on the grounds of (i) lack of legislative competence, (ii) violation of specific fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution of India (the Act not being saved by operation of Articles 31A/31C of the Constitution of India), (iii) The Act is a product of colurable exercise of legislative power and in relation to the matters already covered by State and Central Acts and (iv) insofar as the Act does not make provision for payment of compensation in respect of lands covered under Section 3, it is illegal and confiscatory besides being arbitrary and discriminatory.